Tuesday, January 30, 2007

The Knee-Jerk Reaction Against Ecological Concern

In reaction to the pantheistic, irreligious, and often pagan tendencies of many of those who show a concern for the environment, many Christians go to the opposite extreme and show blatent disregard for the environment and ecology. I've noticed a knee-jerk reaction from many Christians against talk of pollution/ecology. Far from belittling the study of ecology and a concern for the environment, a true knowledge of Christianity leads us to a proper and balanced view of our relationship to our environment.

Many people who should be congratulated for their healthy concern for ecology and nature have been treated with undue suspicion and skepticism by much of conservative Christianity. It is no big suprise that in recent times it is perceived that conservative evangelical Christianity is the enemy of ecology and environmental concern. On the other hand, Eastern religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism are perceived as being friendly and condusive to ecology and environmental concern. Though that may not be entirely true, we must sadly admit that many in our ranks have earned this bad reputation by treating plants and animals in a way which is unfit for creatures which God made. To dig a deeper hole, many times we compensate for our ignorance on matters of ecology and the environment by merely increasing the tone of our pompous rhetoric about how those "tree huggers" can't be trusted. I certainly don't consider myself to be a "tree hugger", but at this point I'll just state that I'd rather be guilty of valuing a masterpiece of God's creative activity too highly than not highly enough.

Here are some points which I would like to share on this subject:

1. While the common perception is quite the opposite, Christianity provides a much more solid and meaningful basis for ecology than the Pantheistic religions do (mainly eastern and tribal religions that say "everything" is God). Only Biblical Christianity can maintain a proper balance between the dignity of animals/plants and the difference between mankind and animals/plants. As Francis Schaeffer presented in "Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology", the Bible presents a balanced view which accounts for both our "oneness" with nature in one sense, and also our difference from nature. In a highly condensed nutshell form: God is infinite and personal. God is infinite, and that distinguishes us from Him. However, God is personal, and we share that with Him, as we are personal too. That explains our likeness and unlikeness with God. When it comes to animals/plans and mankind, there is also likeness and unlikeness. In the sense of being creatures made by God, both man and animals/plants are alike. On the other hand, man is personal and animals are not, which accounts for our unlikeness with animals/plants.

2. It is a false dichotomy--as some Christians seem to want to assume--that we must choose between either (a) abusing nature, or (b) worshipping nature. Not all. In fact, the Christian worldview provides a basis for BOTH treating nature with dignity and have a proper non-romanticized view of it. As Francis Schaeffer said in the aforementioned book, "The value of things is not in themselves..but that God made them, and thus they deserve to be treated with high respect. The tree in the field is to be treated with respect. It is not to be romaticized, as the old lady romantacizes her cat (that is, she reads human reactions into it). This is wrong because it is not true. When you drive the axe into the tree when you need firewood, you are not cutting down a person; you are cutting down a tree. But while we should not romanticize the tree, we must realize that God made it and it deserves respect because He made it is a tree. Christians who do not believe in the complete evolutionary scale have reason to respect nature...because we believe that God made these things specifically in their own areas. So if we are going to argue against the evolutionists intellectually, we should show the results of our beliefs in our attitudes. The Christian is the man who has a reason for dealing with each created thing on a high level of respect."

3. Treating animals and plants with respect does not mean we are saying we can't have dominion over them or use them appropriately. Man's dominion over nature in the pre-fall world is plain and clear (see Gen.1:28). But what it is saying that we must treat nature in the way God has treated it. He made it. He treats it with integrity, creating and sustaining each thing in its own proper order. Francis Schaeffer makes a great point when he says that: "If God treats the tree like a tree, the machine like a machine, the man like a man, shouldn't I....do the same--treating each thing in integrity in its own order? And for the highest reason; because I love God--I love the One who made it! Loving the Lover who has made it, I have respect for the thing He has made".

4. If an ant is in your house, you kill it, and if a tree is needed for firewood, you chop it down. But, we need to use discernment and restrain our urges. In fact, it is easy to miss that much of the excessive strains on the environment actually come from sin--namely lust. Human disregard for the environment (excessive deforestation, unnecessary pain inflicted on animals may seem like an isolated issue. But it isn't. Ever since the fall man has been tempted to exercise a form of skewed and sinful dominion, instead of the proper dominion entrusted to him from God. Man wants to ignore the God-given value of the things he sees around them, and treat them as meaningless objects to fulfill his lusts. This is manifested in many ways: Some men treat woman as if they were mere objects to satisfy their desires. Some employers disregard their employees, and see them as nothing more than objects which they must squeeze every last ounce of energy for the motive of profit. In a different but somewhat related vein, some people and companies see nature as nothing but a convenient object to exploit. They care nothing of its inherent beauty. These are diverese examples, but they all demonstrate a basic tendency toward plundering people and things around us rather than treating them with proper dignity. It is wrong to treat a fish as if it were a human. But it is also very wrong to treat fish as if they were purposeless resources only meant to satisfy our desires. As Christians, our tendencies should not reflect this corrupted "dominion", but rather the true dominion consistent both of respect and good governance that demonstrates that we really believe God created all that is around us. Christians of all people should be characterized by their treating people and things with dignity. This doesn't force people to be vegetarians, but it should cause them to treat all creatures, no matter what their role, with a certain sense of dignity. Instead of seeing everything as a mere resource to exploit, we Christians need to exercise restraint. A Christian should treat the opposite sex with dignity, their employees/employers with dignity, the nature that surrounds them with dignity. This is a tall task, but this is part of the now-and-here healing that the Christian worldview brings to the world.

5. Some people abuse the environment and then turn around to defend their behavior by pretending that their behavior is justified because there is a distinction between man and creature. They are correct on one account: that man is to be distinguished from plants/animals the Christian worldview makes plain. However, they are exhibiting an apparent lack of one of the most pronounced differences between man and animal: Namely, animals pursue their needs with an unrelenting biological pursuit and give no attention to ethical considerations. Humans, on the other hand, have the facilities to self-impose conscious limitation. The ability to regulate and throttle the satisfaction of our needs for ethical reasons is really a definite difference between humans and animals. And true strength and character is demonstrated in restraint rather than consumption. The very principle of management or dominion presupposes that we are weighing and considering these ethical issues. Hence, the man that abuses nature thinking he is maintaining the gap between man and animal is actually showing little understanding of what it means to be man!

6. A Bible-believing Christian can be a naturalist (not in the philosophic sense which denies the existence of the supernatural, but in the vocational or hobby sense) or an ecologist. Perhaps I haven't put this strongly enough. A Bible-believing Christian should be the best naturalist or ecologist. This is because of what the Bible says about performing our tasks as unto God AND because a Biblical Christian should have the strongest sense of why ecology/conservation is important.

7. Francis Schaeffer asks a wonderful question when he says "You may or may not want to walk barefoot to feel close to nature, but as a Christian what relationship have you thought of and practiced toward nature as your fellow creature, over the last ten years?" Not only are we to have dominion over nature, but we share a common groan together for the deliverance found in Jesus Christ's return--deliverance from the curse (Romans 8). People have varying degrees of interest in the wildlife around them. Some people's vocations (or hobbies) put them in closer contact to the plants and animals around them. However, all Christians should be to some degree or another in admiration of the beauty and majesty of the things God created. We should not be characterized as destroyers, but rather by a deep respect for all of the created order. As Francis Schaeffer said: "We may cut down a tree to build a house, or to make a fire to keep the family warm. But we should not cut down the tree just to cut down the tree...We have the right to rid our houses of ants ants; but what we have no right to do is to forget to honor the ant as God made it".

Yes, ants have a certain dignity! They are not humans, but they do derive dignity from their creator. Speaking of "honor" an "dignity" in regard to seemingly insignificant creatures may sound foreign to our highly industrialized sensibilities. But when we consider the glory and splendor of creation, it shouldn't sound so strange. Perhaps it is because we have forgotten the intrinsic value that animals/plants have--in and of themselves--they are not merely there to satisfy our desires for more profit, more possessions, etc. We must both uphold the dignity of creatures and the dignity of humans, each in their own order. As "vice-regents" of God on earth, we are in a sense sovereign over creatures. But our dominion over nature as a "vice-regent" is something we will be held accountable for. Man is not an animal and animals are not humans: they both have their own dignity in their own created order. Nature is neither a thing to abuse, nor a thing to worship. But we should never let our fear of "tree hugging" cause us to avoid a genuine awe and wonder at the beauty dignity of trees and other created things. As Christians we not only ponder the beauty of the plants and animals around us in and of themselves, but we can also see this beauty in each creature as a finite pointer to the infinite beauty of the One who created it.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Making a Difference: Hospitable Evangelism

Back in 2005, the Washington Times had an article commemorating the 50th anniversary of L'Abri.

There is no question that L'Abri has had a great impact...just read that article and you will get a taste of that. This influence was present before and after Francis Schaeffer died. One example given in the Washington Times article is:


In the fall of 1960, Jim Hurley, a 16-year-old American agnostic studying at a nearby Swiss private school, dropped by "to laugh at the fundamentalists."
"He was talking about a God he knew," he remembers of Mr. Schaeffer. "He believed in people having honest questions and him giving honest answers. There weren't any unfair questions [or] unaskable questions."
Mr. Hurley became a Christian the next spring and is now a family therapist teaching at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Miss.


L'Abri's guest list is quite interesting and diverse. Some of the characters to have visit L'Abri over the years include: Jerram Barrs (speaker/author), Timothy Leary (counterculture figure), Rebecca St. James (musician), Mark Heard (musician, Larry Norman (musician), Nancy Pearcey (author), Irving Hexham (author), OS Guinness (speaker/author), Katherine Harris (U.S. House Rep), and Hans Rookmaaker (author). Some of these were athiest/agnostics/etc. when they arrived, and some left remaining as such. That L'Abri would be interesting enough to attract visits from both Timothy Leary and Katherine Harris tells you something about its diversity!!

The Schaeffer's were adament about insisting that people should NOT try to copy their methods and expect the same results. They always insisted that the idea was to be obedient to God's call, and find creative ways to reach people--not to try to reproduce a method that is supposed to work. The last thing needed, they reasoned, was to have throngs of people thinking L'Abri was a pattern to be applied in all sorts of other situations that may or may not fit well into other unique environments.

In reflecting on what I've read about L'Abri, I wonder.. do we ("we" being conservative western Christians) have a cold and clinical view of evangelism? Ie. Trying to win souls without caring for souls? Trying to win souls without wanting to even spend time with them? Trying to win souls without being concerned about any other aspects of their being? Trying to win souls, preferably at a distance and without getting our sleeves dirty? Trying to be an ambassador while living in what essentially could be symbolized by Alcatraz?

For those who are much like me (born and raised in a Christian environment and who are currently a professing "conservative evangelical" Christian, maybe we should consider the following questions...

1. When was the last time I've had someone over at my house that (a) I've known for less than 1 years, (b) is not a believer, (c) is from a radically different cultural context, (d) is not a family member, and (e) they stayed for more than an hour?

2. When was the last time I've had a conversation with a stranger that lasted more than a minute and which both parties would desire to continue? When is the last time I smiled and said 'hi' to a stranger?

3. When was the last time someone (other than a friend or family member or church member) asked you for advise on some issue in their life?

4. When was the last time I've went out of my way to be around or help a person who makes me feel uncomfortable?

5. When was the last time I did something for my next-door neighbour? Or even talked to them? How about the one that hasn't done anything for me?

The more I think about these questions, the more I feel like a hermit. Being an intoverted thinker may distinguish the way we interact, but it isn't an excuse for a totally disconnected life. I think many people living in North America (even very outgoing types) can feel a sense of failure on these matters. And as Christians, we need to be very concerned about this. Think about it, how many new people do you actually run into throughout the course of your day? And is that number increasing or decreasing as the years go by?

God definately uses different personalities and levels of outgoingness, but I don't think we can be ambassadors for Christ unless we are willing to sacrifice to connect with people. "Hit-and-run" may work in self-defense and baseball, but it seems to be a poor excuse for evangelism and probably to some degree has opened up the door for many to dismiss Christianity as a shallow, hypocritical religion influenced by marketing gimics more so than any deep commitment to truth in all of life.

Now.. where does one begin?

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Personal Peace & Affluence - Part One

Much of our life is spent trying to build a fence around ourselves. The one who can build sufficient security and stability around their physical lives is seen as having a full life. Going through a risky situation is seen as an occasional necessary evil, but something which generally speaking is avoided.

We call it "the good life" or "personal peace and affluence". This is what we are taught to strive for. It is idealistic, and those who do not live up to it will often live with guilt about not attaining to it. We as a society, as Francis Schaeffer noted, that is sometimes interested only in our personal peace and affluence. We don't care how much other people suffer. We don't care how unproductive we are. We don't care about morals or philosophy or theories. We don't care about social justice. We DO care about our standard of living and we do care about being comfortable.

One of the most notable casualities in an unchecked pursuit of personal peace and affluence is Truth. The Truth must be worth something, it is reasoned, but not to the extent that I would be willing to endanger my personal peace and affluence for it. Hence, this pursuit overshadows the truth, and consequently becomes an idol held at the expense of what is true.

Along with truth, social justice falls. Social justice is important, it is reasoned, but only as long as it plays as a secondary goal that in some way benefits the primary goal, personal peace and affluence. Then social justice no longer becomes a fair thing, but rather a very narrow means of furthering one groups needs only in so much as they play into the benefits of a higher class.

According to the Bible, no temporal thing should usurp eternal truth. And also, it teaches that truth and justice will always be costly, will always involve some sacrifice (John 15:18-20, Luke 14:27-33). If we chose to follow truth only when it leads us within our norms of personal peace and affluence, we are doing a great disservice to the world and secondarily are estranging ourselves from any sort of connection with the truly radical Biblical vision of discipleship.

While the specifics vary from person to person, ultimately you will be required at some point to chose between preserving your personal peace & affluence and going in a path you know is right. Sometimes these two ways can become contradictory.

One particular example comes forward in my mind. In my denomination in the 1960's, an individual left North America to bring the gospel to a particular tribe in Papua New Guinea. His decision was foolish from any perspective which highly exalts perosnal peace & affluence. Nobody in the denomination had done that before, would this be well received? What would his church think? He was a well-to-do nuclear engineer. What would he do if he cut off his income? He had 4 young kids and a wife he was providing for. Moving to another country with 4 kids and a wife, the reasoning goes, would not be wise, especially when you are taking them into an environment that is dangerous, to a people who are essentially still living in some sort of "stone age". There is no way this decision could be wise when evaluated only on the basis of whether it was good for his personal peace and affluence. But there was something else in operation here: The idea that truth, a mission, a vision, etc. were more important than some of the finer details of personal peace and affluence. The individual decided that God could provide some of these temporal things, if only he would be willing to go out on the limb.

It turns out that this was the beginning of an amazing work. A work that still lasts today. God used this individual to reach a tribe with the Christian gospel who hadn't even been reached with just about anything modern yet. They literally were untouched by civillization as we know it. This gospel not only transformed their hearts, but some social practices that were unhealthy and destructive. He was also used to not only translate the New Testament into their language, but actually invent a written form of their language! Now they are a large group of churches with hundreds upon hundreds of believers and all native leadership!

This individual, Victor Schlatter is his name, said the following, and I think it is a good way to conclude this part: "My mother, a hard-pressed widow, taught me that there is a real Jesus. And if He is real, He is worth believing. His principles are worth following--beyond run-of-the-mill church morality and what is comfortable to twentieth century affluent evangelicals." We need to think long and hard... are we willing to pay the price? What is more important: our personal peace and affluence, or Truth, Justice, and Purpose? While I have focused on religious matters in this post, this concept really applies to the whole of life. Are you just going to seek out what makes you comfortable and safe, or are you willing to take risk when necessary?

To be continued..

Labels: , , , ,