I’ve always been a little baffled by people who deny global climate change. When 99% of scientists agree that it’s happening, what is it that makes one doubt them? Is it because they are scientists and we all know scientists are anti-religion (even though many are not) and therefore anything they say is also anti-religion and a lie? That couldn’t really be it, could it? Don’t we accept what scientists say about how diseases work and how to prevent them or what they say about the laws of physics or chemical reactions or other sciency things they’re experts on? So what’s the resistance to accepting that we are experiencing climate change and that our actions are causing it?
I have a theory. To say that human action has adversely affected our environment, suggests that there are consequences for our actions, and that the things we’ve been doing for years have been wrong. That makes some people uncomfortable, especially when changing our behavior might mean a financial cost. The biggest climate change deniers are companies who see EPA regulations as cutting into their profit and the politicians who are in those companies’ pockets. I think that many Christians who join in on this side of the debate do so as a knee jerk reaction against people they disagree with on other issues. As in, “Al Gore’s views on [fill in the blank] are wrong, or most of those science guys are atheists who believe in the Big Bang, so I must oppose whatever they say.” (I’ll forgo a lecture on how disagreeing with someone on one issue doesn’t mean you have to disagree with them on everything.) If such Christians even try to justify their view with Scripture (though most don’t), they manage a feeble reference to Genesis that God gave us dominion over the earth, as though that’s approval for doing whatever we want with it.
In the environmental debate, proponents of what is called “creation care” have, I believe, more rightly interpreted Scripture to justify an environmentalist approach to life in which we 1) acknowledge climate change and the responsibility mankind bears for it and 2) make conscious efforts to exact positive environmental change. ‘Dominion’ in the Genesis passage does not mean thoughtless domination. It means we have a responsibility for the earth. A satrap given jurisdiction over an area in an empire cannot do whatever he pleases; he is answerable to the emperor and must manage the lands he has been entrusted with accordingly. So, too, we will answer to God for the way we have managed his creation.
Do you think the God who laid the foundations of the earth, who fathers the rain and gives birth to ice, who provides food for the raven, who knows when the mountain goats give birth, who knows when a sparrow falls to the ground (Job 38, Matt.10:29)…do you think this God turns a blind eye toward the environmental damage we have done in the name of profit and comfort? The Bible has a lot to say about God’s hand in creation, and quite simply, He saw that it was “good.” To destroy it either intentionally or from neglect is an affront to Him.
Here are a few things to think about. Seriously, just mull them over for awhile:
1) Because we are under the New Covenant, we don’t follow Old Testament Law to the letter, however, that doesn’t mean we completely disregard it. Instead we follow the underlying principles it teaches. (Again, I know this is a concept that deserves a post of its own. A whole book, really.) OT Law addresses the sacrifice of animals and dietary laws including preparation of certain meats. Christians do not keep kosher, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t something we can learn from kosher laws. Animals must be slaughtered in a specific way referred to as shechita by a trained shochet (kosher butcher). I had learned that this method is more humane than others because it involves slitting the animal’s throat in such a way as to facilitate a quick death. In researching for this post, I found argument back and forth about whether this method is more or less humane than other methods, though much of it is biased. For example, you have to read anything PETA says with a grain of salt. In my research, I came across this article by Rabbi David Aaron. Obviously, there’s probably some bias here too. But one of the points he makes is the same sentiment Michael Pollan expresses in The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which is that it is important for the slayer of the animal to not be removed from the fact that he is, indeed, taking a life. Food in the form of flesh is a gift, not a right, and we lose some of our humanity when we ignore the sacrifice of the animal. Pollan’s book really made an impression on me when I read it. It’s one reason I went hunting with my student. I think everyone who eats meat should kill their own food at least once, so they understand what Pollan and Rabbi Aaron are getting at. One principle Christians should take away from OT dietary laws is the concept of treating animals humanely. Today, that might look like opposing the ill treatment animals receive in CAFOs, reducing our consumption of meat to drive demand down, etc.
2) Creation worships God. Psalm 148 lists both living and non-living things as praising God. While one could argue that David (or whoever) was just being poetic, it becomes harder to make that argument when you also consider that Jesus said the very rocks would cry out in praise. You also have several examples of animals doing God’s bidding, such as: Balaam’s ass, the ravens who delivered food to Elijah, the fish that swallowed Jonah, and the bears who taught those whippersnappers a lesson for mocking Elisha. And what lesson can we learn from the ant? (Prov. 6:6) Meanwhile, Paul states in Romans 1:20 that creation is evidence of God. What is the implication, then, when we destroy it?
3) What are the spiritual implications when we aren’t good stewards of the earth? It could be one of a number of things. Like I said in the beginning, some people are poisoned by greed. They believe they can save (or make) more money if they continue doing the things they’re doing. (Ironically, when you crunch the numbers, being ecologically friendly is also usually economically friendly.) Sometimes the issue may be apathy. Some people don’t care because they “have more important things to worry about.” This is indicative of short-term planning, and to these I would say, “Look to the ant.” The apathy could also be a result of the person not believing the matter impacts them. This is most serious, because it is indicative of selfishness and pride. These are the people who plan to leave a fracked, oil-spilled, rainforestless world to their children and grandchildren.
(Those of you who don’t know my background might find it interesting to know that I grew up in a city where the Velsicol company dumped DDT, PBBs, and other chemicals into our river. That happened before I was born. I never saw the plant. I only saw the land on which it once stood. Nearly forty years later, that land is still fenced off with a warning that it is contaminated. The EPA started cleanup of the river in 1998, and the process is still continuing. Perhaps for that reason, my mom recycled before it was “cool” and residents of our city were more environmentally conscious than those of similar towns. In middle school, my best friend and I won first place at the science fair for our project on the environment. And when the Green Bible came out, it struck a chord with many a citizen in the area.)
With all the information available today, you shouldn’t need to grow up near an environmental disaster site to know what’s being done to the earth and to care about it. And, especially, to my Christian readers, if you have a heart for God, you should have a heart for what He’s made. What He deemed from the very beginning “good.”
*One more note, in case anyone is concerned that I used the term Mother Nature and sees it as a pagan reference to Gaia, or whatever: When I say Mother Nature, I’m using it as another name for God. I know that might not be the etymology of the term, but I think it’s fitting since He is the Creator and He is described as a mother in some passages of the Bible (Psalm 131, Isaiah 42:14, 49:15, 66:13, Hosea 13:8, Matt. 23:27). Technically, God is sexless, so insisting on always referring to Him in the masculine is not theologically sound.