Week 6

I don't know if it's because I'm not enjoying reading this book, but I have a hard time giving any credibility to Steven Bouma-Prediger's arguments made in his For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care. By that, I don't mean to say that Bouma-Prediger is an unintelligent, inexperienced individual in his field of study; I merely mean to say that I don't think he presents his points very well.

Let's flashback to chapter two of his book, "What's Wrong with the World?"  Bouma-Prediger exposes his readers to a large number of observable, documented crises in which the earth and its inhabitants currently find themselves, such as overpopulation, hunger, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and climate change, to name a few. He implies that since these dangers are apparent in today's world, it is obviously imperative that mankind does something about it; humans need to reevaluate their lifestyles to yield the necessary change in this world.

This isn't where I think Bouma-Prediger is bogus. I'll get there. Just hold on.

Now let's look at the reading for this past week, chapter five, entitled "How Should We Think of the Earth?" Bouma-Prediger discusses an issue that I think could revolutionize the way mankind treats the earth: theocentricity. We, as humans, should not develop a care for the earth for the sake of humans, the sake of the earth, or even for the sake of life itself; we ought to care for this earth for the sake of its Creator. There's just something more convicting about our treatment of the earth when we step back and realize that we have been abusing a gift from God. We ought not develop a philosophy of ecology; we ought develop, rather, a theology of it.

Again, this isn't where the red flags come popping up for me. Hence, chapters two and five, separately, seem fairly legitimate to me, but when I look at them as a whole, I feel like Bouma-Prediger is missing some key points.

In essence, Bouma-Prediger asserts that mankind has unfortunately destroyed its home, and to repair it, mankind must develop a new, theocentric mindset. However, is it fair to propose that the world fixes its ecological gaze on God? It would seem that there's a step in between mankind's current view of the earth and developing a Christian view of the earth: mankind must first become Christian.

I understand that Bouma-Prediger's description of a Christian care for the earth is directed more towards the church; obviously, that's where this kind of ecological view ought to start. However, if this kind of care is to solve the problems Bouma-Prediger presents earlier in his book, then a Christian care cannot be limited to just the church; the church doesn't have that large of an influence to correct mankind's ecological mishaps itself. Hence, in order for Bouma-Prediger to have a leg to stand on, it seems that in order for mankind to truly solve the earth's problems and to have a proper view of the earth, it must become Christian. Otherwise, it won't develop a properly theocentric view of the earth.

Believe me, I wish that the world would embrace Bouma-Prediger's arguments. I wish that the world would turn their eyes to its Creator not only that it could prevent the destruction of the earth, but that it could truly understand what it means to be human in all regards. However, if we think practically about this, it doesn't look like the world will suddenly turn to Christianity anytime soon. Hence, Bouma-Prediger is accurate in his arguments, but he simply needs to be thinking more practically. Before asserting that we allow Christianity to change how we view the world, he should first address how we should change how the world views Christianity.

That, however, seems like quite an arduous task.