. The question we need to ask, especially of evangelicals, is this: Does the church matter? And if so, how does it matter? Now over to Mary...While taking my doctoral exams in graduate school, I had to answer a method question which asked me to grapple with the question, "Earth: Does it matter for theology?" During the previous school year, my department had offered a course in ecological theology, which everyone facing that exam question wisely took. A friend of mine in the program, a Catholic priest, joked to the professor offering the course that he did not need to take it, as he already recycled. In all seriousness, though, I think everyone in the class agreed at the end that course had given us valuable content.
At one point in the course, we discussed the work of Lynn White and his argument that environmental degradation was largely attributable to ideas coming out of Christianity. Inevitably, someone mentioned evangelical Christians and the way in which an evangelical understanding of dispensational premillennialism (though that term wasn't used) led to a lack of care for the environment. As Tom Sine argues, "It doesn't make much sense to be overly concerned for the environment is going to burn anyway" (Harper and Metzger, 79).
Do you think the gospel has anything to do with creation? Is creation care redemptive in a meaningful sense?
I don't remember exactly how I responded, though I somehow pointed out that not all evangelicals are premillennialists, that there are actually a number of evangelicals interested in environmental protection and moreover, that environmental protection was consistent with evangelical values. It is this topic that Brad Harper and Paul Louis Metzger seek to address in the chapter, "Eschatology, the Church, and Ecology in this book we are discussing here at Jesus Creed blog.
Perhaps one of the most interesting claims made by Harper and Metzger is one that is similar to that made by N.T. Wright in Surprised by Hope. They write, "The biblical vision of future salvation clearly contains a number of otherworldly images. But the kingdom of God is neither the hope for a future spiritual existence, nor the hope of an escape from this world to an entirely heavenly creation. Rather, it is the hope for a redeemed bodily existence in the present cosmos and on the present earth, renewed by having been released from its bondage to sin and the curse that corrupted it" (Harper and Metzger, 80).
Do you agree with Harper and Metzger?
Because Christianity has traditionally stressed an anthropocentric (human-centered) rendering of the fall, an anthropocentric rendering of salvation and re-creation has resulted. While the larger implications of the fall have not been wholly ignored by theologians, the emphasis has largely been on the relationships between human beings and God rather than the relationships between human beings and the environment.
Ultimately, Harper and Metzger argue, "the kingdom of God is about the redemption of not only the church, but also of the whole creation" (Harper and Metzger, 80). After giving some biblical examples to support their contention, they spell out the implications of their claim for the church.
If the redemption of all of creation is part of the ethos of the kingdom, and the church is the instrument of the kingdom, then the church must care about the environment. As believers do the work of healing the earth, creation can again do the work of praising God that it was originally meant to do. They write, "Human praise is completed when it is joined by the voice of the cosmos in exhaltation of the One who, as the hymn writer proclaims, is the 'joy of the whole earth.' Here the earth, once perfect, now broken, and one day to be glorious again, is brought together with the church in its own eschatological anticipation" (Harper and Metzger, 84).
The kingdom of God demands, they claim, that we not simply look at Genesis to understand the significance of nonhuman creation, but that we also look to the eschaton. It is only when we have the eschaton in view that we can fully understand the purpose of the nonhuman creation, and our own responsibilities to care for it.
What do you think? Do Harper and Metzger's claims convince you?
They leave their readers with a closing question, which I think is an intriguing one to pose here. Martin Luther once said, "If I knew the world were to end tomorrow, I would plant a tree today." What are we to make of this statement and how might it inform our conversation on this topic?
Perhaps one of the most interesting claims made by Harper and Metzger is one that is similar to that made by N.T. Wright in Surprised by Hope. They write, "The biblical vision of future salvation clearly contains a number of otherworldly images. But the kingdom of God is neither the hope for a future spiritual existence, nor the hope of an escape from this world to an entirely heavenly creation. Rather, it is the hope for a redeemed bodily existence in the present cosmos and on the present earth, renewed by having been released from its bondage to sin and the curse that corrupted it" (Harper and Metzger, 80).
Do you agree with Harper and Metzger?
Because Christianity has traditionally stressed an anthropocentric (human-centered) rendering of the fall, an anthropocentric rendering of salvation and re-creation has resulted. While the larger implications of the fall have not been wholly ignored by theologians, the emphasis has largely been on the relationships between human beings and God rather than the relationships between human beings and the environment.
Ultimately, Harper and Metzger argue, "the kingdom of God is about the redemption of not only the church, but also of the whole creation" (Harper and Metzger, 80). After giving some biblical examples to support their contention, they spell out the implications of their claim for the church.
If the redemption of all of creation is part of the ethos of the kingdom, and the church is the instrument of the kingdom, then the church must care about the environment. As believers do the work of healing the earth, creation can again do the work of praising God that it was originally meant to do. They write, "Human praise is completed when it is joined by the voice of the cosmos in exhaltation of the One who, as the hymn writer proclaims, is the 'joy of the whole earth.' Here the earth, once perfect, now broken, and one day to be glorious again, is brought together with the church in its own eschatological anticipation" (Harper and Metzger, 84).
The kingdom of God demands, they claim, that we not simply look at Genesis to understand the significance of nonhuman creation, but that we also look to the eschaton. It is only when we have the eschaton in view that we can fully understand the purpose of the nonhuman creation, and our own responsibilities to care for it.
What do you think? Do Harper and Metzger's claims convince you?
They leave their readers with a closing question, which I think is an intriguing one to pose here. Martin Luther once said, "If I knew the world were to end tomorrow, I would plant a tree today." What are we to make of this statement and how might it inform our conversation on this topic?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"largely attributable to ideas coming out of Christianity" = caused by Christianity as I read it.
These types of claims hit me in a sore spot - because it is the Dawkins-Hitchens et al. tactic.
The spot is especially sensitive no doubt because of the attitude of many evangelicals.
In my experience, more folks believe Christians believe in dominionism than Christians who actually do.
21 - Evangelicals are less concerned about these anymore as much as government using the planet as an excuse to intrude into every aspect of our lives.
I have not had time to read the previous comments, so I will offer just a few here.
1. If we pay attention to scripture, particularly Deuteronomy, Chronicles and Psalms, it becomes clear that the OT is not so anthrpocentric as we first thought. The land suffers and the people suffer because the land suffers because of the people's abuse of it. I love Ps. 19 and 104 among many others precisely because in different ways they marginalize the importance of humans in God's creation. Eg. the ships just happen to sail in the playground of Leviathan.
2. Increasinlgy I find it counter-productive to separate humans from "the evironment," as some of us have done in the past (See Steven Bouma Prediger in "For the Beauty of the Earth"), because one can make a much stronger case by arguing for justice for those who suffer when creation suffers. Eg. the folks in Appalachia who suffer poisoned water because of mountain-top removal mining which feeds our power plants.
Peace,
Randy Gabrielse
I think there are two separate, but related issues going on:
1. Lynn White claims that Christianity is in some way culpable for environmental degradation. That claim has been debunked. Harper and Metzger point out that White doesn't have a good grasp on historic Christianity.
2. Evangelical Christians until recently have been seen as a group as generally uninterested in ecological issues due in part to either a wrong understanding of the creation-cultural mandate in Genesis 1 or a dispensational theological outlook (or both).
I think where the two become connected is not that White's claim is somehow actually substantiated by #2, but rather that those who are not well acquainted with evangelicalism will see evidence of #2 and think that it gives credence or support to #1.
While it is not true that evangelical attitudes have somehow caused the ecological crisis, the stereotype (that I think has been recently changing) that evangelicals do not care about ecology is coming from somewhere.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.