Environmentalism and the destruction of the world

|

Many Christian responses to the environment seem to obscure a very important doctrine. In their call to action, some recent books and pamphlets I have read on the topic hide the biblical notion that this world will be destroyed.

There is a hot debate running among Christians, and it is stereotypically played out as though each side owns half the evidence:

  1. Academic and denominational publications advocating care for the environment own all the verses that talk about stewardship and the continuity of the created order with the one to come (its transformation)
  2. Grassroots individuals advocating an ‘I-don’t-care attitude’ seem to own all the verses that proclaim clearly the end of the created order (its destruction).

Yet why the impasse? I think you can be concerned for the welfare of our environment and still hold to the verses that show the violent future that will come. However, often it seems as if concern for the environment silences us from announcing the news of the final judgement!

Let me propose two brief analogies that relate our dying world to mortal humans and animals:

  1. Until Christ returns, our bodies will all die. Despite this, we expect doctors to do all they can to preserve life while it lasts. This is basically their Hippocratic Oath. It is futile, in one sense, because they are fighting the inevitable decay, and yet it is worthwhile because mortal life still has inherent value. Our destiny is worm-food, and yet we still must take care of each other’s bodies. In a similar way, we should take care of our world as we were created to do, even if it is destined for fire and destruction (2 Pet 3, Heb 12). The mandate to stewardship is perhaps our ‘Hippocratic Oath’.
  2. The Bible says that a righteous man is concerned for the life of his animals, whereas the wicked man is cruel to them (Prov 12:10). This verse applies especially to those animals a man eats! The underlying word is often translated ‘cattle’. Here is the parallel: even though we subdue the earth and use it, and even though it will not last forever, it is not our place as Christians to be particularly cruel or wanton in ruining the world. Just as righteous people care for the animals they ‘use’, we also must care for the world we ‘use’.

In this discussion, I take it as given that Christians should care for the environment in some way. But I want to urge us to think about our environmentalism and how it relates to our message of the final destruction and renewal of all things. The future does not hamper our efforts to care for this world; it actually gives us clarity, and avoids both the pitfalls of the new godless ‘environmental religion’ and the ‘don’t-care’ attitude of some Christians.

Let’s be good stewards of the environment, but let’s also keep preaching the end of all things shamelessly! The devil is probably rejoicing that what seems an urgent thing (environmental concern) has silenced us from preaching an even more urgent thing (that God will destroy and renew all things himself).

14 thoughts on “Environmentalism and the destruction of the world”

  2. Andrew,

    Don’t know if you saw it, but what did you think about Lionel’s comments on addressing environmental problems in his post (scroll down) on welcoming children?

    However, it’s not really true that overpopulation itself is causing the strain on the earth’s resources. What is causing this strain is a much more basic problem—a problem which Francis Schaeffer identified way back in the 1960s, and a problem which the Bible talks about again and again: human greed (e.g. Exod 20:17, Rom 1:29, Jas 4:2-3). It’s not that there are too many people, it’s that certain people (especially in the West) are insatiably using more and more resources. Think of Australians: in general, on average, we are gobbling up oil to get ourselves around more conveniently, and we are gobbling up land because the average household size has dropped, so fewer and fewer people are now living in bigger and bigger houses (not to mention the extra cost in electricity for heating and lighting, etc). The strain on the earth’s resources would be stopped overnight if we all became content with what we had, and were happy to live with larger families under one roof.

    Or take food resources, for example. To quote a statistic I heard recently, there are now more obese and overweight people in the world than there are malnourished people in the world. (That includes countries such as China.) That statistic means that there is more than enough food for everybody many times over. It’s just that it’s not being distributed properly—because of corruption and greed. Overpopulation isn’t the problem; it’s the age-old problem of greed.

    In fact, I reckon a better way for western Christians to combat the problems that are so often blamed on overpopulation would be to have more children—providing that they are committed to seeing that all of their children are “Christianly and virtuously brought up”. For if that is true, there should be more and more people who have been brought up to be less greedy, more patient and more generous, to use less resources, and therefore to effect a good and lasting change in our world.

    Maybe I am off your topic a bit, but it’s so very heard to know exactly what to believe about global warming and so on, whereas it seems very clear to me that humans ought not to be be greedy and profligate in their use of resources. And the coming judgment ought to be an incentive to repent of such waste!

  4. Our destiny is worm food? I thought we believed in bodily resurrection?

    Hi Michael.  I may not have been clear – but this is the destiny for our bodies until Christ returns (see the opening sentence of the paragraph).  The point still stands.  Doctors try and fix up the body even though it will be destroyed physically by worms.

    Don’t know if you saw it, but what did you think about Lionel’s comments on addressing environmental problems in his post (scroll down) on welcoming children? 

    Hi Sandy.  This is an excellent post by Lionel and the comments you make are right.  I have five kids of my own and yet it’s still hard to teach ourselves and our children to be less greedy – particularly at this time of the year.  A couple of days ago we came back from our holiday.  We had a great time staying in a holiday house with hardly any ‘stuff’, but were shocked when we came back to our house and all our junk that burdens us down.

  5. Andrew,
    my point with bodily resurrection is that we can’t read ‘total destruction’ in an absolute sense. There is a transformation of this created order and so a real continuity between our bodies now and our resurrection bodies. So with bodies the significance is not just ‘its good to keep the body alive even though it will die’ but ‘because we have been created and will be renewed bodily our bodies matter now’. If this is right, can you also say it for the environment?

  6. Thanks Andrew, especially for tackling the issue from the perspective of scripture.

    Personally I found the report you mentioned to be quite depressing.

    I have concluded to this point in time (and hope to be proved wrong) that there is no mention of the ‘destruction/end of the created order’ because this is not believed, at least not in the terms as you express it or as I understand it from scripture. Rather the emphasis from the article (and some discussions in other places) seems to be on ‘renewing’ and ‘rejuvenating’ rather than on ‘new’ as in Rev 21-22.

    Am I missing something here? Please correct me if I am wrong in my thoughts.

    Di

  7. Andrew,
    my point with bodily resurrection is that we can’t read ‘total destruction’ in an absolute sense. There is a transformation of this created order and so a real continuity between our bodies now and our resurrection bodies. So with bodies the significance is not just ‘its good to keep the body alive even though it will die’ but ‘because we have been created and will be renewed bodily our bodies matter now’. If this is right, can you also say it for the environment?

    Michael.  I think the comparison is very tight. 

    The good the doctors do to our physical bodies will not last.  It takes God to breathe life into the dry bones and give them life again.

    The same is true of the environment.  It will take God to destroy and give new life into the creation.

    The renewal of the world (following it’s destruction) is ultimately only going to happen by God’s hand.  This doesn’t mean we don’t act.  We still care for the world until God cleans it up himself.

  8. Am I missing something here? Please correct me if I am wrong in my thoughts.

    Hi Di.  I am totally with you on this.  I am also saddened by the way that the Christian academy has let us down in this issue.

  9. I have noticed a parallel polarisation between those who focus on evangelism and those who emphasise social justice issues. Often the underlying theological divide is in our eschatology and whether we emphasise the destruction or transformation of the world. (Or in some cases ignore eschatology all together.)

  10. This is a very apt critique but then again we cling to things and fight for things that perish.  Our jobs one day will end and the homes that we live in we’ll one day move out of and the countries that we live in will one day be judged and be no more.  But it doesn’t stop us from fighting for them…

    The environmental debate has been hijacked by a lot of crazies, especially those from the socialist left.  They’ve taken the environment to worship creation rather than the creator so Christians need to be careful not to singe their fingers in the same way.

  11. Regarding Lionel’s comment:

    so fewer and fewer people are now living in bigger and bigger houses (not to mention the extra cost in electricity for heating and lighting, etc

    The Sydney Diocese’ requirements for clergy housing are not exactly stingy. Do our housing committees consider environmental factors when setting housing standards?

  12. Hi Andrew,

    I think you are right that the images of judgement and violent intervention are often played down by some who seek to embrace an eschatology of material continuity.

    Perhaps as a way of helping you understand where such folks are coming from, it is helpful to remember that the Christian theological tradition has, in many cases, downplayed any notion of material continuity, and eagerly embraced the wholesale annihilation of the world. “Heaven” becomes the favoured term for the future, rather than “new creation”. This has inspired the reaction you now see, in which many folk (myself included), have been surprised and delighted to discover that the Bible speaks also of the renewal of the created order, and a ‘full bodied’ future in resurrection life. Inevitably, in reacting to the previous extreme, new extremes develop, and this has led to a downplaying of important texts. It can be hard to get the balance right.

    Having said that, I am not sure we are on the same page on this issue, but I do appreciate your drawing attention to the need for balance. I simply think it important, however, to remember that the historical-theological context for this issue is broader than the last 5 years of scholarship. That larger horizon is what informs a lot of the thinking you see.

  13. Hi Phil. Thanks for your comment.  I think you point out a real parallel here.  It’s brilliant that Christians get involved in good works as long as they still proclaim boldly the judgment of God and his salvation.  Destruction before renewal seems so vital since God will make a clean start again and there will be no more injustice, poverty, crying etc.. when he (not us) makes all things new.  This again doesn’t mean we avoid good works – quite the contrary. 

    Hi Hadyn. I’m glad you’re reading along.  As is often the case, I think what you have to say makes a lot of sense.  Christians can buy into a lot more than environmental care when they dip into environmentalism.  We must beware worshiping it, being cruel to it, or letting it change the gospel.

    Hi Roger.  I think I’ll have to let Lionel continue this discussion – but I’ll say this on a personal note:  I think that big families should abandon the idea that every child has his/her own room.  This applies as much to those in ministry as others.  We have three in one room and two in the other.  At a previous church we had four in a room.

    Hi Mark. Thank you for writing your comments.  I think you have given a good account as to why many have swung to a new position here.  Why can’t people hold both!  I worry though that the swing away from destruction language is actually a weak attempt to make the gospel seem more palatable.  In the end true comfort comes from the knowledge that God will fix up the mess that we couldn’t.  After all 2 Peter 3 speaks about those who are Christ’s people living on both sides of the cataclysmic event (continuity).  It also says that God will destroy the present creation (discontinuity) as he did in the time of the flood.  He himself is going to make the environment new, just and beautiful.  This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be live new, just and ‘beautiful’ lives while we wait.  In fact, quite the opposite.

Comments are closed.