Christians and the Environment

[Josh]

12/19/06:

What do you think about the popular conception (imo) that a lot of serious Christians don't give a hoot (ie, spotted owl) about the environment? It's all going to burn soon, anyway, right?

I think Christians in America have really dropped the ball when it comes to advocating for well-thought out natural conservation, etc.. I think this trend is changing, but suffice to say, we need more Green Christians*


* not to be confused with "save the whales but kill the babies" environmentalists, but a bit of 'tree hugging' wouldn't be bad in my opinion.

[Josh]

Thoughts on this oldie? I added a poll and I realize it's very unfair as I haven't defined "environmentalist". But actually, I'm just curious if you'd use the term to describe yourself or not and why.

[ben]

I am kind of changing my view on the environment. I remember growing up as a kid in Honolulu and how the beaches seemed so pure. I really took it for granted. I am being convicted that God wants me to be smart about taking care of His creation.

[Josh]

BTW, when I said "thoughts on this oldie?" I meant the topic, not you, ben!

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[ben]

I'll bet you're really not that sorry! ha ha

[robin]

I would not label myself and environmentalist. Not because I don't care about the environment, because I do. However, I'm not passionate about the environment, and I don't find myself worrying about global warming, or the spotted owl. I actually find myself more concerned with how environmental policies enacted by our government harms people, and their lively hoods. For example, liberals in Congress, along with our President are try their best to pass Cap-and-Trade legislation which will in fact tax the public to the tune of billions, if not trillions of dollars in the name of "saving the environment". Much of what I see from the environmental movement is, in my opinion, a crime against humanity.

[Josh]

Your position is understandable, Robin.

The reason I am okay with using the "ism"/ "ist" label is simply because of the meanings I pour into the term and for the fact that I believe Christians have been negligent on the issue of the environment for too long. So for me the use of the term is a corrective measure or a way to distance myself from "christian attitudes" about the environment that I think are negligent.

But, of course, there are negligent "environmentalists" as well, so there's a lot of semantics going on here.

[robin]

So for me the use of the term is a corrective measure or a way to distance myself from "christian attitudes" about the environment that I think are negligent.

I'm not sure that I understand this statement. I guess I have never thought of Christians as being anti-environment. Also, I don't see how one's position on the environment effects the reliability of the Gospel. Spreading the Gospel should be our focus, and not making Christianity attractive to any particular group. I fear that too often we as Christians get so wrapped up in worrying about what the world thinks of us that we forget our mission.

If someone refuses to become a Christian because there is not a sense of environmental concern among believers, then I am left to believe that they were never interested in Jesus at all, but rather joining a club of like minded people. We don't need those kind of Christians, the Church is already filled with them.

More later.

Robin

[Josh]

I guess I have never thought of Christians as being anti-environment.

Really? I definitely have seen a lackluster attitude toward the environment amongst evangelicals, often fueled by pre-millenial fervor (it's all gonna burn mentality)

Also, I don't see how one's position on the environment effects the reliability of the Gospel.

Part of the gospel message is that God is restoring us to His intended place for us as masters and caretakers of His creation.
Or as Steve put it on Sunday, "masters of the universe"

Spreading the Gospel should be our focus, and not making Christianity attractive to any particular group. I fear that too often we as Christians get so wrapped up in worrying about what the world thinks of us that we forget our mission.

Titus 2:10 b
....in every way.... make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.


Part of spreading the gospel is living the gospel. The truer we are to God's word, the more attractive the gospel is. It's a good thing for the world to be attracted by anything good we do or represent.

If someone refuses to become a Christian because there is not a sense of environmental concern among believers, then I am left to believe that they were never interested in Jesus at all, but rather joining a club of like minded people. We don't need those kind of Christians, the Church is already filled with them.

That's a very black and white perspective. What if we aren't talking about people who are "refusing" but people who are "confused" about whether what we have is really the truth? People who are getting mixed messages? Don't you think we have a resonsibility to represent ourselves well to such people? Paul said so in a couple places.

[Josh]

Somehow I don't think this is exactly what Steve had in mind ;D

[Josh]

Maybe it would be good to talk about what we think the Christian idea of humanity's responsibility is toward the creation.

[robin]

I definitely have seen a lackluster attitude toward the environment amongst evangelicals, often fueled by pre-millenial fervor (it's all gonna burn mentality)

And I have seen my fair share of Christians who are strong proponents of the environmental movement. But what does that matter? We should not take our personal experience and assume that they are accurate representations of the church as a whole. We should respect individuals rights to view such peripheral issues differently without degrading them, or thinking less of them, nor should we paint any group with such a broad brush.

Part of the gospel message is that God is restoring us to His intended place for us as masters and caretakers of His creation. Or as Steve put it on Sunday, "masters of the universe"

Did God create man for the earth, or earth for man? It is also my opinion that the environmental movement does is not believe in your statement at all. Environmentalists do not see man's position in the world as one of masters of the environment, but rather man must be sacrificed on the divine alter of mother earth.

Titus 2:10 b
....in every way.... make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.


Part of spreading the gospel is living the gospel. The truer we are to God's word, the more attractive the gospel is. It's a good thing for the world to be attracted by anything good we do or represent.

Again, none of us should be so presumptuous to assume that we know what is and is not attractive to the world as a whole. Do you think that environmental movement is attractive to those Farmer, loggers, truckers, fishermen, coal miners, and rough necks who have seen their lives, and families destroyed by so called environmentalists, and their policies? This is why the church should stay focused on the Gospel, and not dictating what Christians need to believe about non-essential, and debatable topics like how to be good stewards of the environment.

As I stated before, my position on the environment should not effect the reliability of the Gospel. I see the two topics as autonomous.

That's a very black and white perspective. What if we aren't talking about people who are "refusing" but people who are "confused" about whether what we have is really the truth? People who are getting mixed messages? Don't you think we have a responsibility to represent ourselves well to such people? Paul said so in a couple places.

Of course we should represent ourselves well. But what does that mean? To me it means that we love everyone, and show compassion to those in need, without Judging people or looking down on them for not sharing our political, and social views. Everyone should be able to look at the Church and see a group of people that love and respect each other enough to allow for freedom of thought on these issues. I find that this would be far more attractive than a church that takes hard line stands on issues that will alienate many segment of the population.

Also if we are worried about confusing people, perhaps we should avoid issues where Christians have a variety of opposing views, and focus on the truth that we all agree on, that bing that Jesus is Lord, and He deserves our love and obedience.

This issue is one that is personal in nature, not corporal. My relationship with God is no less edifying, or meaningful than yours simply because we view environmental issues differently.

Robin

[Josh]

degrading them, or thinking less of them, nor should we paint any group with such a broad brush.

Who's degrading? However, I do not respect the notion that the environment is expendable to our greed.

More later.

[Josh]

It is also my opinion that the environmental movement does is not believe in your statement at all. Environmentalists do not see man's position in the world as one of masters of the environment, but rather man must be sacrificed on the divine alter of mother earth.

I realize that by using the term "environmentalist" I am bringing to mind a particular brand of environmentalism which does have the viewpoint your describing-- which of course I don't ascribe to. But I guess I'm attempting to define a Christian view on the environment.

Again, none of us should be so presumptuous to assume that we know what is and is not attractive to the world as a whole. Do you think that environmental movement is attractive to those Farmer, loggers, truckers, fishermen, coal miners, and rough necks who have seen their lives, and families destroyed by so called environmentalists, and their policies?

What is right and what is good is always attractive and should be the only kind of attraction we seek. I'm not talking about the "environmental movement"- I'm talking about a theology and attitude that holds the creation as valuable and worth preserving- and that shouldn't in and of itself offend any farmer, logger, trucker, or fisherman unless they themselves see the creation as merely a means to an end.

This is why the church should stay focused on the Gospel, and not dictating what Christians need to believe about non-essential, and debatable topics like how to be good stewards of the environment.

Who said anything about dictating? How about reasoning together?

[robin]

Jul 28, 2009 17:41:10 GMT -8 Josh said:

degrading them, or thinking less of them, nor should we paint any group with such a broad brush.

Who's degrading? However, I do not respect the notion that the environment is expendable to our greed.

More later.

Greed is a subjective term. Some environmentalist who are to the left of you would say that your use of a 4 seater car to transport yourself to work, when you could take public transportation is greedy. Who do think should set the standard for what is greedy, and what is not?

All of us, to some level, exploit the environment for our personal benefit. I prefer to let people chart their own course in these matters, and determine for themselves what is excessive, and what is not.

I realize that by using the term "environmentalist" I am bringing to mind a particular brand of environmentalism which does have the viewpoint your describing-- which of course I don't ascribe to. But I guess I'm attempting to define a Christian view on the environment.

The problem I see is that I don't think it is possible to define the "Christian view on the environment". So long as people are free thinkers we will find that Christians have varied views on the environment, and the bible does not explicitly lay out a environmental position that is clearly defined. It is a very subjective matter.

What is right and what is good is always attractive and should be the only kind of attraction we seek. I'm not talking about the "environmental movement"- I'm talking about a theology and attitude that holds the creation as valuable and worth preserving- and that shouldn't in and of itself offend any farmer, logger, trucker, or fisherman unless they themselves see the creation as merely a means to an end.

What you view as right and good, may not be define in the same way by others. Like it or not, when you use terms like environmentalism, it carries with it negative connotations in the minds of many like the groups mentioned above.

The groups mentioned above don't need to see the creation as a means to an end, in order to be hurt by environmentalists. In fact most of those who fit into the category above probably have a greater love for creation then those who call themselves environmentalist. It should also be note that environmentalism in itself is a means to an end, and the end is communism. You see, I can question peoples motives as well, but thats not really fair is it?

Who said anything about dictating? How about reasoning together?

Agreed.

Robin

[krhagan19]

If your mother gave your a beautiful and unique gift, one that sustained you for all practical purposes, but she warned you, you cannot replace this gift anywhere, and furthermore, your children are going to have to use this same gift to sustain themselves, what would you do with that gift? If it were me, I would take care of that gift as best as I could, even sacrificing a little temporary economic gain for the welfare of such a precious gift. That is how I see the Earth. It is a gift from God, and barring the invention of faster than light travel and there actually being habitable earthlike planets around other stars that are not already occupied with well armed civilizations to defend themselves. This Earth is the only gift we get. SO YES, I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE CARE OF IT!