Thursday, August 31, 2006
We Must Start At The Beginning
Yesterday, I linked to this Al Mohler post, opining "this is how trouble starts." Mohler looks at a published letter written by a secular humanist environmentalist to a fictious preacher in an effort to promote dialog, and agrees that a dialog should occur. With this much I agree, dialog is always a good thing.
But then, as Mohler has done before, he overstates his case and does not consider carefully the ramifications of all that he is saying. Mohler admits there is much in the letter with which he disagrees, but then selects the following paragraph as a place where agreement and dialog could begin.
Firstly, leaving aside the details of evolutionary theory, there is simply too much evidence of species coming and going to believe in a static creation. To buy the static creation viewpoint, one must assume that the fossil record is mischief of some sort, either created by God as some sort of giant cosmic joke, or planted by the devil purposefully to mislead us. Personally, I do not think God's humor is misleading and I think Satan has far more subtle ways to achieve his ends.
Secondly, I would argue that as we are made in God's image, and creativity is perhaps God's most visible attribute (look around you), that we too are intended to create. One of the things that separates us from God is that we cannot create ex nihlio; therefore, for us to exercise our "imageness" in creativity, we must change creation somehow. In other words, we are definitionally God's agents of dynamism in His creation.
This means that any form of Christian environmentalism is going to be asking a very different set of questions and have very different goals from a secular one. Secular environmentalism seeks to preserve creation in its current, or perhaps some regressive state. Christian enviroinmentalism can do no such thing; it's essential tenant is instead how best to alter creation to serve God's purpose.
Now, back to where we began, I am sure there is some pragmatic common ground within those two radically different perspectives, but we must exercise extreme caution in any such dialog, and especially in any joint action. To make it appear that we share worldview on issues like this with the secular will harm evangelism in general. Further, in such common cause we risk eroding our own worldview, something I am not sure Christianity can withstand much more of.
Related Tags: environment, envrionmentalism, Christian environmentalism, wordlview, perspective, Al Mohler
But then, as Mohler has done before, he overstates his case and does not consider carefully the ramifications of all that he is saying. Mohler admits there is much in the letter with which he disagrees, but then selects the following paragraph as a place where agreement and dialog could begin.
Surely we can agree that each species, however inconspicuous and humble it may seem to us at this moment, is a masterpiece of biology and well worth saving. Each species possesses a unique combination of genetic traits that fits it more or less precisely to a particular part of the environment. Prudence alone dictates that we act quickly to prevent the extinction of species and, with it, the pauperization of earth's ecosystems.As I said yesterday, that is a place of maximal disagreement from my perspective. For starters, most environmentalism, in all its expressions, is entirely naturalistic. However, this fundamental philosophical difference has been well discussed, so I will not dwell on it. The problem I have with this "starting point" is that from a Christian perspective it would mean that we hold God created a static universe, one that should not change - ever. And yet, the evidence is quite strong that we live in a dynamic universe, one in which change is the norm. Unless you want to argue that the fall destroyed creation as much as man - which I cannot - then I for one cannot accept the static universe view. I will make two brief arguments.
Firstly, leaving aside the details of evolutionary theory, there is simply too much evidence of species coming and going to believe in a static creation. To buy the static creation viewpoint, one must assume that the fossil record is mischief of some sort, either created by God as some sort of giant cosmic joke, or planted by the devil purposefully to mislead us. Personally, I do not think God's humor is misleading and I think Satan has far more subtle ways to achieve his ends.
Secondly, I would argue that as we are made in God's image, and creativity is perhaps God's most visible attribute (look around you), that we too are intended to create. One of the things that separates us from God is that we cannot create ex nihlio; therefore, for us to exercise our "imageness" in creativity, we must change creation somehow. In other words, we are definitionally God's agents of dynamism in His creation.
This means that any form of Christian environmentalism is going to be asking a very different set of questions and have very different goals from a secular one. Secular environmentalism seeks to preserve creation in its current, or perhaps some regressive state. Christian enviroinmentalism can do no such thing; it's essential tenant is instead how best to alter creation to serve God's purpose.
Now, back to where we began, I am sure there is some pragmatic common ground within those two radically different perspectives, but we must exercise extreme caution in any such dialog, and especially in any joint action. To make it appear that we share worldview on issues like this with the secular will harm evangelism in general. Further, in such common cause we risk eroding our own worldview, something I am not sure Christianity can withstand much more of.
Related Tags: environment, envrionmentalism, Christian environmentalism, wordlview, perspective, Al Mohler
