Week 4

I don't know if I'm too practical a thinker or rather simply a cynic, but I can't escape this feeling of helplessness in regards to our class discussion. I know that's a fairly depressing way to start, so just bear with me for a while.

First off, I need to establish that I am a firm believer that God can do all things and that the church, those who choose to follow him, can accomplish great feats in his name. However, from a lifetime of observation, it seems like the church is not going to get anything done anytime soon with this whole "saving the earth" bit.

So far, I'm sure I'm coming across as a cynic.

Dr. Carla Sunberg raised a thought-provoking question in class discussion this week: in regards to the numerous ecological and agricultural crises in the modern world, wouldn't it be something else if the church was the group to spread awareness and bring about the necessary change?  Well, yes and no.

Surely I believe that the church should become increasingly concerned about the condition of the earth. However, the blame for the destruction of the earth and the motives behind man's flippancy regarding stewardship are neither here nor there. You can believe that Christians are responsible for the current condition of the earth. You can believe that Christians have no regard for the present condition of the earth because they find reassurance in the future restoration of what they have destroyed. You can believe that humans, as a whole, are simply ignorant of the implications of their behavior, ecologically speaking. It really doesn't matter to me, but you must agree that mankind has not taken care if its home. Ergo, it makes logical sense that the church should start making mankind's mistakes known and advocate for solutions.

However, the voice of the church has not been a very persuasive one in recent times. It seems that nothing that the church backs is backed in return by the masses. For instance, as I mentioned in class discussion, the church has made its stance regarding homosexuality abundantly clear. Look where that got us. We spent so much time and energy pleading this nation to agree with us over this issue simply to discover the futility of our efforts in the end. It is also worth noting the amount of celebration that this nation witnessed over the result of the Supreme Court decision. People just don't agree with the church anymore, and it's not just in regards to legislation. The church has lost its voice, generally speaking, in regards to politics, foreign policy, ethics, education, and any number of social issues, so who's to say that the church can somehow gain an influential voice in ecology and agriculture? Hence, to back to Dr. Sunberg's question, yes, it would be nice if the church realized the immediate importance of stewardship, but no, that does not necessarily mean that its importance will become widely known in the world.

Again, I'm probably coming across as a cynic.

Perhaps, then, before the church decides that it wants to change the world, it needs to relearn, in essence, how to change the world. Before we launch a campaign against the destruction of the earth, we need to reevaluate how we go about yielding social influence. We can't expect to blatantly state our stance in this crisis and expect that others will be receptive to what we have to say; that clearly hasn't been the best approach as of late. How, then, do we go about reestablishing the impact of the church in society? I have no idea, but I'm willing to learn.

For the time being, I say that we focus less on changing the world and instead focus on changing our world. We speak where we know we are heard: within the church itself. We don't slap the world in the face with our sermons and convictions until we learn how to properly speak to the world. Instead, we unite the church under a new philosophy of stewardship that embodies a true sense of caring for the earth in which we live. I think that is a fair place to start.

So am I thinking too practically or cynically? I don't know, but, hey, at least I'm thinking. That's more than some people can say.

Week 3

Now that class discussion has shifted from ecological debates more toward theological and ethical debates, it is a lot more my taste.  I do not mean to say that talking about the wellness of the earth bores me, although it might; I only mean to say that there is a reason why I chose to major in ministry and not in biology.  That being said, particularly "The Dark Side of Chocolate" and chapter three of Steven Bouma-Prediger's For the Beauty of the Earth were both intriguing, to say the least.

"The Dark Side of Chocolate," strangely, was almost a sigh of relief for me.  Before you go assuming that I am a heartless, child-abusing heathen, hear me out.

So far in this class, the ecological and agricultural issues that we have discussed, for the most part, have been concerned with how our present way of life may or may not affect our future way of life.  We have debated how we will be able to feed nine billion people within the next thirty years, whether or not our levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have a lasting effect on climate, and other things of that nature.  "The Dark Side of Chocolate," on the other hand, presented an issue in agriculture and business that needs to be discussed and resolved immediately.  We do not need to discuss hypothetical dangers anymore.  We need not speak in potentialities.  We can focus our attention on the present reality.  Why spend so much time worrying about tomorrow when there are lives at stake today?  There is no debate as to whether or not child labor and trafficking are acceptable; the debate is how this problem needs to be solved and how soon we can start.  Hence, the sigh of relief was not a sigh of relief that children in Africa are being trafficked and abused; it was a sigh of relief that now we can discuss something of immediate importance.

That was where the sigh of relief stopped.  I finally found an issue that I find to be almost annoyingly pertinent with which I could finally get on board, but I still have no idea what to do now besides feel guilty for my lack of action.  Now I feel angry at the makers of that video for exposing us to a problem without presenting a solution.  Regardless, I have lost almost completely the desire to hash out the details of things like aquaculture while injustices like this continue.  Like I said earlier, there is a reason why I chose to pursue ministry instead of biology.

Bouma-Prediger's chapter also made me feel guilty.  This time, I felt guilty because of what I was doing, not because of what I was not.  I unfortunately had to agree with all of the points made against the Christian faith in regards to the preservation and destruction of the earth.  The ecological complaint against Christianity seems legitimate.  However, is it possible that Christianity is merely the scapegoat?

Let me pause for a moment.  Yes, I am probably a little defensive in this scenario because I am a Christian and certainly do not want to be charged with the destruction of our planet, and, yes, if Christians had a compelling case to blame pagans for destroying the earth, I am sure that we would use it against them.  It is only human nature.  Men will blame women, women will blame men, players will blame referees, students will blame teachers, and so on and so forth.  I understand that I am speaking in generalities, but people tend not to accept responsibility for their mistakes, especially if their mistake is destroying the earth in which we all live.

Ergo, my only wish is that the debate not be about who is to blame.  How about we all man up to our faults and admit that we, all theological and eschatological viewpoints aside, have not done our planet justice?  As mentioned in my previous post, humans, generally, have not polluted this world maliciously.  So why point the blame?  If Christians went about their lives with the intent of harming the earth, then I would understand ostracizing them.  However, from a lifetime of observation, I can attest that Christians do not lie awake at night and devise schemes as to how they can ruin the earth's water supply and pollute its atmosphere.  Thus, instead of deciding whether or not we are to blame, why not focus our energy on something productive, like actually saving the earth?

Week 2

So far in this class, if I am being perfectly honest, I have yet to be strongly convicted of my treatment of earth or to unveil in myself a newly discovered appreciation for the world in which I live through writings such as Wendell Berry's extensive, poetic admiration of the natural world in Andy Catlett: Early Travels.  Am I just too closed-minded in my approach to the texts?  Maybe.  Perhaps, rather, my previous biases of how mankind ought to preserve the earth (as outlined in my previous post) are being reinforced by the authors who argue that man's current treatment of the earth is not inherently destructive.

I should rephrase that.  Yes, humans have most decidedly caused destruction to the world.  One look into the muggy Kankakee River can prove that.  However, one can consider a fair amount of the damage mankind has caused earth almost "necessary evil."

I understand that I am walking on thin ice here.  Hang with me.

First off, I understand that surely there are instances where humans have inflicted meaningless, mindless harm on the world in which we live.  Again, one look into the muggy Kankakee River can prove that.  Steven Bouma-Prediger, in his For the Beauty of the Earth, offers a number of observable problems with the world that humans have caused, such as acid rain, loss of biodiversity, and deforestation, to name a few.  However, if one examines the widely debated phenomenon of air pollution, for example, one will find that there are many benefits to counter the drawbacks, and, frankly, people who argue for the treatment and prevention of air pollution often mind only the drawbacks and overlook the benefits.  For instance, Wendell Berry, in his Andy Catlett: Early Travels, reminisces about the days of horses and mules before the abundance of machines, speaking affectionately of those times and wishing the world had not changed so abruptly.  Obviously, machines, such as cars, tractors, and combines have released a dangerous amount of unwanted gases into the atmosphere, but do the costs really outweigh the benefits?  In what kind of a society would we live if we still relied on horsepower to perform daily tasks?  Surely, it is possible that the consequences of the overuse of machines has ultimately been worth it.  The air pollution has been a "necessary evil" to allow mankind to make advances in agriculture, travel, and countless other areas of life.

Let me offer a couple disclaimers before I proceed.  Firstly, I am not implying that I support the continuation of pollution simply for the sake of various human endeavors.  We do not need to release an abundance of dangerous gases into the atmosphere, especially if there is a safer alternative.  As explained in my previous post, I do believe that there are problems with the current condition of the earth, and those problems need to be addressed.  Secondly, I am not advocating that mankind does not need to change some of its ways.  We have caused problems, but if there is one thing man knows how to do, it is how to solve problems.  After all, we find ourselves in this current ecological predicament because we solved problems.  The Industrial Revolution, the major turning point for a large amount of pollution in the world, was a solution to a number of problems in the industrial world.  Now that we have discovered a number of problems that our solution has created, we are earnestly searching for more solutions.  Likely, those solutions will cause other problems, and the cycle will continue.  That is how advancement takes place.  The moment humans stop having problems to fix, they cease to advance and, in essence, cease to be human.

All I mean to say is that a great deal of pain humans have inflicted on their home planet has not been in bad taste and should not be automatically ruled as unjust, heartless crime.  Ayn Rand, in The Anti-Industrial Revolution, almost mocks those who overly advocate for the preservation of the earth because of their fixation on the inanimate and disregard of human life.  Of course, Rand's article was more a response to the hippies, who were really just looking for policies to protest, generally speaking.  His argument may have been a bit different had he been exposed to the data available to us today regarding the condition of the earth.  Regardless, there is some logic to his position.  Those who obsess over the preservation of the earth have the tendency to pay no mind to the condition of the human race; however, likewise, those who concern themselves with the advancement of the human race often disregard the condition of the earth.  Ergo, maybe there must always be a "necessary evil."  In extreme terms, maybe we can only preserve the earth while destroying mankind, and maybe we can only preserve mankind while destroying the earth.

Perhaps, then, ecological debates should not center around minimizing destruction but rather on maximizing construction.  Then, it is a matter of priorities.  Which is more important: taking care of the earth or taking care of the human race?  That, however, is another discussion for another day.

Week 1

As a ministry major, it seems that I ought to have an opinion about everything because people, throughout my future vocational life, will be looking to me for answers.  I need to have a stance on gay marriage, abortion, pop culture, social media, politics, and everything else that has an influence over the American culture because my stance should affect and reflect how the church stands.  For the most part, though, the church has made its opinion known regarding most of these issues, and I can simply agree with it instead of formulating my own opinion.

However, the earth is something that often goes unmentioned in theological debates.  After all, the church's stance on how man ought to treat the earth can be broadly summarized in four simple words: take care of it.  Why sit and meticulously sort out the specifics of such a stance when the church is too busy fighting "more important" battles of a secular society, right?  Why would the church need to outline a position on stewardship when it can simply set up a few recycling bins, plant a couple trees, and then go back to what really matters?

Well, maybe the church should start caring a little more.  Earth-threatening problems may be closer than we think.

Do know that I include myself when I say, "the church."  I never cared much about protecting the earth.  After all, I survived both Y2K and 2012, so it was only habit to think that this ecological horror story was only another hocus-pocus, end-of-the-world bit.  My thought process was as follows:

We will have to feed nine billion people by 2050?  We can do it.

Water is not only getting scarcer all the time, but it is also getting less pure?  Surely it will all be alright.

Our meat consumption will have to decrease in order to feed the world?  No, thanks.

Acid rain is destroying U.S. marine life?  Not until I see it.

Earth's temperature is climbing every year?  So we might have to wear some more sunscreen.  So what?

My positions on issues such as these were built on indifference rather than ignorance. I knew the numbers. I had seen the graphs.  I had heard that we needed to make a change.  I was just never worried.  After all, the earth has yet to fail us, so why would it start now, right?  However, my apathy was not unique; many Christians choose to ignore this eminent issue, even if they are aware of its severity, simply because they cannot solve the problems themselves.

I have only one question to such people: what is Christ-like about discarding these apparent ecological crises?  Jesus did not see five thousand hungry men and assume that someone else would find a way to provide.  He did something about it!  I understand that he had divine power and substantially less than the nine billion people we will soon have to face, but, regardless, when presented with the many issues this aging earth is experiencing, ask yourself, at the risk of sounding cliche, what would Jesus do?

Honestly, however, there is not much knowledge as to what we ought to do.  For instance, National Geographic Magazine gives a lot of research as to agriculture, diet, aquaculture, and other ecological arenas, but, for the most part, states that there are improvements to be made and merely recommends a handful of improvements.  Likewise, Steven Bouma-Prediger, in For the Beauty of the Earth, outlines several problems with the earth that are escalating, such as the increasing population, global climate change, and over-consumption of energy, to name a few, only to leave readers wondering what can be done to resolve such crises.

At this point, I understand that there is not much that the church can do to feed all the hungry people of the world, purify all of earth's water supply, regulate the levels of greenhouse gasses in the earth's atmosphere, or oversee the diet of all mankind, but it can at least make its opinion known.  As mentioned earlier, the church has made known its position on homosexuality, abortion, politics, and a number of other social issues, so clearly the church knows how to spread awareness, which may be the most influential tactic it can use to preserve the aching earth.  We ought to make the problems known until the only logical next step is to make the solutions known.  The world knows that the church has a voice.  Why not voice something that affects the way we all live?  The world knows that we can prompt change in the world.  Why not change, in essence, the world?