 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Previous
article
| Next
article
I vividly remember an occasion last year when a Christian speaker at a meeting I attended absolutely infuriated me by an argument he made on the topic of conservation. He declared that Christians who had voted for the Green Party in the General Election were wasting their vote and were guilty of having their priorities in the wrong place. According to him, evangelism was our highest calling, with issues such as social justice coming in a poor second while paying attention to conservation issues was pointless in view of Christ’s imminent return and the certain destruction of the Earth. Quite how he obtained these points from the text of Genesis 18 I would be interested to know … however, the general reasoning was clear.
Reaching a conclusion of conservation being incompatible with Christianity begins, innocently enough, with the presupposition that as Christians we should dedicate our time and efforts primarily to those things that are of eternal, rather than temporal, significance. Efforts to conserve the things of this world will have only a transitory result which will be rendered useless by the destruction of the world at the end of time. In contrast, the human soul is eternal. Efforts to evangelise are of primary importance: seeking to give people the opportunity to hear the gospel message, put their faith in Christ, and receive eternal salvation. With evangelism accepted as the primary goal of Christian action, it therefore follows that ones vote should reflect this priority. As no British political party has a manifesto that includes world conversion to Christianity as its major goal, this is somewhat problematic. However, those for whom issues of justice are a priority could form a suitable substitute, based on our understanding of God’s concern for the poor. Unfortunately voting Green is a clear loss from this standpoint as their major policies involve environmental protection, which has already been argued as a waste of time. Now, I am not particularly interested in arguing over the merits or otherwise of voting for the Green Party, but I strongly object to the idea of conservation as “pointless” being represented as a Christian teaching.
Christians certainly do have a mandate for evangelism, but that does not mean that it is the only thing they need to be concerned about. The Great Commission constitutes the last instructions of Jesus to his disciples in Matthew’s Gospel, but this does not necessarily mean it is his most important command. After all, more of Jesus’ teaching is recorded about money than any other topic but we do not conclude that a Christian is only concerned with money! The Bible teaches us about many issues, all of which deserve our consideration.
Dismissing conservation as a low priority is dangerous in that it will encourage a profligate use of natural resources and a lack of concern about the current human destruction of the Earth. That the Earth may be ultimately destroyed by God is no reason to allow human abuse of it. The passages in Revelation which speak of this destruction also record the death and judgement of the inhabitants of the Earth, yet no one would argue that this should legitimise murder now. On the contrary, Christians believe that humans have an intrinsic worth because they are made in the image of God. In the same way, the earth is God’s creation, His handiwork, made for His glory. In Psalm 148, the psalmist speaks of all creation giving praise to God, their Creator. If “the Earth is the Lord’s and everything in it, the world and all who live in it” (Psalm 1), what right do we have to destroy it?
In Genesis 1:26 we see the relationship which God intended mankind to have with the rest of His creation. On the sixth day of creation, God is recorded as saying “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” As the earth belongs to God, our rule over it is only temporary, so we are not owners but stewards of the land. A steward has a responsibility to the owner to look after and care for his property, using it wisely until his return. Such a situation is described by Jesus in his parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14–30) where the good stewards are rewarded but the bad one punished. All people take joy in the beauty of the world around them; it is therefore not only a duty to God but to future generations to leave the world intact and not damaged beyond repair. If species are lost in our generation, then no future one will ever see them — such destruction and loss is irreversible.
Even apart from such ethical considerations, even the most selfish consumer of our era might find pragmatic reasons for energetically supporting conservation measures. The effects of human impact on the environment are not all distant, many appear set to cause major problems within our lifetime. Climate change is already occurring and the carbon dioxide emission reductions agreed in the Kyoto protocol would be insufficient to halt it, even if countries achieved their target reductions. Sea level rises will follow, catastrophically for many low-lying countries. Species extinctions may be at an all time high, although exact figures of species loss are unknown as many species are going extinct before they have been discovered. This is driven primarily by habitat loss and will be exacerbated by climate change. Over-fishing is destroying fish stocks in many places world wide, including the cod in our own North Sea. Reduction of CFC emissions is a rare success story: destruction of the ozone layer has been halted but the existing damage is already the cause of excess cancer deaths, especially in Australia. These problems deserve to be major concerns for all people, including Christians. Action is desperately needed on every scale to stave off disaster.
So, should an expectation of the return of Christ alter our response to these issues? The speaker I mentioned earlier certainly thought that it made such future concerns irrelevant. After all, if Jesus might return in glory within the year, what is the use of worrying about the future that won’t happen anyway? We should go, tell the gospel to all nations, and ignore any other concerns. The Thessalonian church appear to have reached a similar conclusion about work in general; what was the point if they would not see the results of it? Unsurprisingly, Paul warned them repeatedly against idleness, stressing the need for alertness and self-control in view of the unknown timing of the second coming. Similarly, Peter writes: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be destroyed by fire and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to lead holy and godly lives, as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming” (2 Peter 3:10–12).
Godliness is doing what is pleasing to God, so caring for His creation can certainly be included in this injunction. The sin of human greed is devastating our environment; the consequences of this are set to return upon us whatever the timescale that remains to humanity. Tackling such human sin is the prerogative of Christ, but seeking to limit the consequences and alleviate the destruction and human suffering it creates is definitely appropriate action for Christ’s followers.
Have you, like Fiona, ever heard a Christian talk which you disagreed with? Why not write an article for Christis to put the record straight! submissions@christis.org.uk
Previous
article
| Next
article
|
|
|
|
|
Last modified: 25th November 2005