I googled the title and came up with this website: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4010/is_200205/ai_n9033508/?tag=content;col1 about an environmental preacher. I think what she says makes sense: that Christians shouldn't be about overconsumption and waste. I think that definitely fits into what I see were Jesus' priorities: modesty, unselfishness, and sacrifice.
But, should we be environmentalists? To me, much of the environmental agenda has turned political and thus ideological. I think there's a tremendous difference between cutting your consumption, cutting off lights, and recycling- and trying to make the world colder (I'm sorry, I'm a "We can do anything about Global Warming- cynic"). I have plenty of faith that humans can make the environment bad, but not much faith we can reverse macro trends.
What is more interesting to me is, at the macro level, what would Jesus be for? Would He have sided with Al Gore or would he have belitted a "Tower of Babel"-type idea: this turning the world colder?
I really do think He would have been for micro-level environmentalism- just as Reverend Bingham talks about. But I also think that Jesus would have not been interested in macro-level politics. I think He was focused on the spiritual side of things and the Afterlife. "Render unto Caesar" could well have been "render unto Al Gore"- which I would take to mean to not get involved in the debate- at least not on religious terms.
But, if you believe that macro changes emerge from micro changes- then perhaps everyone turning "greener" will be a good thing overall for the planet. And while we might not get colder, maybe we can at least keep from getting any less healthy. And I would submit that would be in keeping with Jesus' teachings.
Welcome to The Red Cell!
If this is your first visit here, please take a moment to peruse the posts and comments. Try to see things from the vantage point of someone who does not know God.
The "Red Cell Thoughts" are not to be taken as a position of this blog- they are meant to stir thought. Please feel free to post other thoughts, questions, and possible answers. All posts are anonymous, but feel free to provide your name if you so desire. The Red Cell facilitators reserve the right to edit comments that are rude or offensive. Having said that, a little bit of offensiveness may be allowed- because if we offend no-one, then we might not be working hard enough! Remember, the Christian religion was founded on questioning the prevailing wisdom of the day and the Protestant Reformation continued that tradition. Don't be afraid to question all your assumptions.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think we are called to be good stewards of what God has given us. Paul, in trying to describe his freedom as a Christian said that he was free to do all things, yet not all things were good for him to do. God gives us the freedom to eat a gallon of ice cream for dinner - - is it really the best choice we could have made? Probably not.
ReplyDeleteBy being good stewards of our environment, we become good stewards of our bodies, which are His temple.
I think Jesus wants us to be less selfish. If we love Him and follow Him, wouldn't we want to make the best choices to care for what He created and suffered and died for?
Less selfish is key- I think you're right. That seems to me to be a theme of Christianity- and even other religions. That leads me to wonder how the Afterlife relies so heavily on unselfishness- which to me is a logical conclusion to Jesus' priority of it. If it is so key, I have to believe it is "needed" or preferred in the Afterlife. But to what end? I find it hard to believe Heaven is some sort of rest (RIP?) after the struggles of earthly life. Part of my belief in a purpose to all this is a belief that there is something coming later too- something that is perhaps unpredictable- but reliant on the initial conditions, so not totally chaotic. Something that relies on the lives we lead down here. Makes me wonder if it will be ironic- or seem so to us later.
ReplyDelete