On my way back from purchasing flats of tomatoes and other vegetables today, I got to thinking about a topic that has surfaced in various essays and blogs recently. The gist of the discussion is how one, as a Christian, should view the earth and its resources.
We have the biblical command of God to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28 “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’” In other words, propagation of the human race and subjugation of plant and animal life for the use of human beings are central to God’s message.
On the other hand, we have environmentalists who are adamant about preservation of every species of plant and animal life and insist on regulations to protect the earth from intrusions of humankind into their habitat. Each year, Earth Day — April 22 — marks the anniversary of what many consider the birth of the modern environmental movement in 1970.
I decided to call my blog Eco-Religion. Googling the word up, several articles popped up. One article in Miranda Global by Robert Deinhammer, S.J., vice president of the International Theologian-Graduate College Canisianum in Innsbruck, Austria, caught my attention. Deinhammer holds a doctoral degree in law and philosophy and worked as a lecturer at the Paris Lodron Universität of Salzburg. He is the author of numerous works in the areas of law and social philosophy, ethics and philosophy of religion.
According to Deinhammer, “Nature,” or “Mother Earth,” are good and even in some way “holy,” whereas human beings are evil, since they try to dominate nature and wish to exploit it. According to this line of thought, the natural course of the world should be disturbed as little as possible. On the contrary, human beings ought to adapt to nature, should “respect” it and even “reconcile” themselves with “her.”
Now, I’m not a worshiper of Mother Earth, but I do realize that we cannot let this planet run amok by its abuse. Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.
Deinhammer concludes his article with that balance:
“The Christian proclamation of faith appeals to critical reason, for only the dynamic of a critical reason can distinguish faith from superstition. Therefore, the proclamation of faith must simultaneously critically review all irrational beliefs. It is a witness to faith to criticize the devastating exploitation and abuse of the environment, but at the same time, we are called to oppose an ecoreligion that offers no genuine service either to humanity or to nature itself.”
So, the logic for a happy medium I find to be on target. It is in the implementation of it that problems arise. When confronted by the question put to Christ as to the role of religion and civil government, Jesus’ response was astute: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s; give to God what is God’s.” The Teacher didn’t tell us how to do this. He gave the principle.
The two situations are similar. Respect the earth and maintain it for future generations, but use its resources for the benefit of humankind. Give, in taxes, to government what it needs to provide for the common welfare, but give also to God and his children voluntarily and, if possible, equally.
In Eco-Religion, the difference between humans and animals practically vanishes in areas such as the animal rights movement and the advocacy of veganism or vegetarianism. Make no mistake about it. Today in our society within the environmental arena there are two radically different religious world-views contending against each other for the control of men’s minds.
According to an article from the Chico Enterprise-Record, July 31, 1993, by Dave Workman of the Grace Community Church, in one corner you have Christian Monotheism, the belief in one personal God Who as the Creator has given man the stewardship of earth; in the other corner you have Eastern World Pantheism which views Nature as a divine entity with rights equal or superior to man.
As this pantheistic eco-religion labors to remake man in earth’s image we can already see it flex its religious muscles in several normal ways: in its establishment of new holy days (e.g. Earth Day); in its demand for new ritual performances (e.g. recycling, carpooling); in its identification of new religious taboos (e.g. fur coats, aerosol sprays, fossil fuels); and in its writing of new moral laws (human dominion over nature, once a religious mandate, now becomes a religious crime).
What should be our response? While we should be appreciative of the reminder this movement has given us to be better stewards in safeguarding our world against human greed, we should also be aware of the need to safeguard our own minds against replacing our Father God with their Mother Nature and thus “exchange the truth of God for a lie, and worship and serve created things rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever” (Romans 1:25).
As G.K. Chesterton once pointed out, “When a man ceases to believe in God, he does not believe in nothing, he believes in anything."
