Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Does it matter if we produce acid rain or bomb civilians in Iraq?

If you check out this address , you can read an interview with Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham, where he explains his views on Heaven and resurrection.

However, the bishop said something which really scared me:

Does it matter if we try to take care of the Earth as a planet and of other people's physical welfare? I think it does. I'm not sure that the bishop is saying that he thinks that it doesn't matter, but it seems to me that maybe that is what he is implying here.

To me, one of the scariest spion-offs of Christian thought is the idea that perhaps we don't need to look after the world or ourselves or other people, because God will bail us out anyway. If we destroy this world and make a total mess of everything on the Earth, then God will just create a new and better world for us. Yes, perhaps he will. But the Bible is hard to understand and interpret, and who knows if those who believe that the Earth is disposable are right about that?

I Genesis 2:15, it says that the LORD GOD put Adam in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. So isn't it better that we think of ourselves as the keepers of the Earth and of our brothers and sisters, rather than that we think that we have been given divine permission to play Russian roulette with our home in the cosmos and with ourselves and other people?

Ann

Trust me when I say that that ideology is NOT as common among Evangelical Christians as the media may portray us.

Yes, it is important to educate people of the need for accepting Jesus Christ's free gift of salvation. And, at some point, God is going to destroy the First Heaven and the First Earth and create a New Heaven and a New Earth.

BUT...

We don't know when this will happen. Could be tomorrow, could be next year, could be another millenium (personally I don't think it will be that long ) but until He comes for His own, we are obligated to take care of the Earth and our fellow brothers and sisters.

James

Well, in the middle age people were convinced that the end of all days was to come pretty quickly. That's why it took so long to invent such a thing as people's rights. Life on earth just didn't seem to be so important and thus it didn't have to be comfortable. It was going to be over in a year or a couple of years, so why bother?

I guess that today most people don't expect Judgement day to be tomorrow. So I would say that saving earth is important for the generations to come. That's one reason why I wouldn't agree with that bishop.

The other one - I think it's quite interesting that this bishop thinks that he'll be in heaven despite killing civillians in Iraq and destroying the earth's atmosphere. Of course he's not going to throw the bombs himself. But people also (and rightly) criticise the Catholic Church for not having done anything against the Nazis. So not speaking up against something can be a sin too, can't it?

I'd like to think that if one did believe in God and followed the belief that God created the earth and all it's creatures, you would want to be a good steward of what God has given you and look after both our planet and the people on it.

I don't believe in God but betting everything on the afterlife seems a little short-sighted to me.

I think, reading the article, that Bishop Wright is saying that particular view is held by the authors of the Left Behind series based on their idea of Heaven. I don't think he is saying that he believes it himself.

I agree with James that the idea that we can trash the earth because we're all going to Heaven anyway isn't very widely held. I'm sure there are some who believe that, but I don't, nor do most of the other Christians I know. For one thing, we and our descendants have to live here in the meantime, and second, most of us have the sense to take care of the gift we've been given.

I actually had to write a paper on this very thing the other night. I had to take the position of a religious leader and either push for my group to lobby Congress etc to lower greenhouse gases or push not to.

My position ended up being that my group has finite resources and we'd prefer to use them to help people rather than push policies [that may or may not be enforced] but at the same time, that doesn't mean we can't be good stewards. I don't think running out and financing a 15G hybrid car at 8% [or whatever the rate is] is being a good steward of my financial resources even though it might be better for the environment, but I'll certainly consider one the next time I pay cash for a car. I'll turn off lights when I can. I have had a fire in the LR every day it's below 40* or so and turned the heater down so I use less electricity.

I don't drive more than necessary [but that's more because gas costs to stinking much than an environmental effort but the effects are the same]. We've switched to the funny looking bulbs in all covered lights in the house [the ones where you can't see the bulb] but haven't quite come to grips with using them where they can be seen because they look funny, but we will soon I'm sure.

While I UNDERSTAND what is being said, I don't really agree with it. We have to take care of what we have. That's how most people I know feel. We're not going to go crazy one way or the other, but when given the option to 'go green' we'll certainly take that into account when making decisions. A lot [most?] of the people I know would qualify as evangelicals so...

Our next family car will not likely be a hybrid b/c we have 4 kids now and haven't decided if we want more or not and to the best of my knowledge there aren't hybrids that will fit all of us [and we buy a couple years old, not new so...], but we also don't drive the van all that much [one tank lasts at least 2 weeks most of the time] so... For DH's car when he gets a new one - it's a much more real possibility.

Anyway - thought it was interesting that you'd post this question literally two days after I wrote about it.

Carol

You are correct in calling it a spin-off of Christianity Ann because true Christianity believes nothing of the sort. That is one thing that has always got my blood flowing is when someone who claims to be a Christian poorly represents Christ. When I say, "claims to be a Christian", I am not implying that they are in fact NOT a Christian. I believe everyone makes mistakes, says things they regret, etc. and it doesn't make them a NonChristian because of it. I just mean that they are misrepresenting what they DO believe and for someone who knows nothing about Jesus or the Bible, it can put a bad taste in they're mouth.

I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ cares for all his creations, be it humans or Earth. Reading through the first Chapter of Genesis confirms that God/Jesus saw all his creations and saw that they were good.

Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

Christians have been viewed as hypocrits for a long time and honestly, we are. I say that because we believe something and yet act in a completely different way. Paul in Romans says something of the sort.

Romans 7:14-25 14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

This seems like a copout (sp?) to say, "It's not my fault I screwed up. Sin made me do it." But I don't think that's what Paul means at all. He's talking about the struggle a Christian has to represent Christ how he deserves and we continually screw it up. I know my ranting has gotten a little off the subject but when I read things like what the Bishop said, it just irks me. I don't want everyone to think that Christians think we should not care about what we do in this life cause we're going to go to Heaven anyways.

Romans 6:15-16 15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

One more verse: in this one Paul is talking about the leaders/teachers of the Church.

Titus 1:9 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

I know I may have gone on a slight tangent but I just had to say all that.

In conclusion, no, I don't think we should pollute the Earth and carelessly murder civilians just because this Earth won't be around forever.

Okay. I feel better now.

Ann,

I haven't posted on these boards for awhile, although I do drop by now and again just to see what's new. I saw your post, and have to ask you:

Can you give us the name of any Christian who actually holds this belief? As Elisabeth rightly pointed out, the purpose of Bishop Wright's statement was to refute such a view, not to espouse it.

None of the Christians who have responded to your post hold this view. Nor do any of the Christians I know. Nor, I would wager, do any of the Christians you know.

I don't blame you for believing that this is the belief of Conservative, right-wing Christians, because that is what mainstream media is telling us. Conservative Christians believe we are living in the end times. Conservative Christians vote against certain pieces of legislation aimed at "conserving the environment". Aha! Surely it must be that Christians don't care about conserving our natural resources because they believe the end is coming! I won't go into a long theological discussion at this point, but I will say that the reason Christians vote against some pieces of pro-environment legislation has absolutely nothing to do with their beliefs about the end of the world. Believe it or not, it has to do with their belief in the immeasurable intrinsic value of each and every human on the face of the earth, combined with their belief that we are to worship the Creator, not His creation. Which is not to say that Christians take lightly their responsibility to be good stewards of the earth and all that is in it, but that, when push comes to shove, the Christian will value the human being more highly than an animal or a tree.

Frankly, I find the very real spin-off of Islam*, which advocates strapping bombs on mentally-challenged women and then using remote-control devices to detonate them in crowded market places, much scarier than this straw-man "spin-off" of Christian thought.

- Vicki

* some would argue that the violent, warrior Islam is the "true Islam", and that the "spin-off" is the gentler, moderate side. I heard one Imam, for example, explain quite rationally that the Koran says all infidels, by the very act of rejecting Islam, are committing a crime against Allah. Thus, the command in the Koran to refrain from killing innocent people does not apply to the infidel, since by definition he is not innocent. Another Imam proclaimed quite unequivocably that there is no such thing as "moderate Muslims", only "ignorant Muslims", explaining that by this he meant ignorant of the true teachings of their faith. Not being Muslim, I cannot say if these two men were accurately portraying their religion, or if they were nut cases, so I leave the question of which side represents true Islam for the Muslim community to resolve.

Something to remember about religions/ethnic groups in general:

The crazies get a lot more media attention because they're a lot more "interesting" (and also louder).

That's true of the "religious right" in the US (which, from what I've heard, is losing a lot of power these days), and it's true of Muslims, even the Arabic ones.

And... you know those mobs of 20-somethings you see chanting in the streets protesting the US and all? Turns out a fair number of them are paid to be there. They get bussed out to the big city, have a little vacation, get paid something like $50/day... all for spending some time standing in a crowd holding up a sign and chanting.

Every group has its crazies. Just a fact of life. But, often, they're not as numerous or as bad as they're made out to be.

Let me repeat that I consider the idea that we are not obliged to take care of the Earth a spinoff of Christian thought, not mainstream Christian thought. There are so many different spinoffs of Christian ideas. Some people may argue that we should be vegetarians because God originally told Adam that he should eat only what grows in the Garden of Eden. Others may argue that we should renounce all our possessions, because Jesus told us that blessed are the poor ones. Like I said, these ideas are spinoffs of Christian thought. They are not mainstream Christianity.

Well, it doesn't bother me if people choose to be vegetarians. And if they choose to be poor, or if they devote their lives to helping poor people in poor countries for the glory of God, that most certainly doesn't bother me. Rather the opposite.

But if people say that it doesn't matter too much what will happen to the Earth because God will make us a new world anyway, then that scares me out of my wits. Because these days humanity can affect the biosphere of the Earth very badly and seriously. We couldn't back in the days of Jesus. If the world had been destroyed in his days, it would have had nothing to do with man-made pollution or greenhouse gases or the large-scale deforestation of the Earth.

Just yesterday I came across an article (in Swedish) claiming that there are two continent-sized "trash bergs" floating in the Pacific Ocean, made up mostly of plastic bags and other junk and both of them bigger in size than the United States. The Swedish article also claimed that all this trash contributes to the death of marine life, because many fish eat this junk, believing it to be food. But they get no nutrition that way, so they begin starving until they die. Here is an English-language article about the same thing:

Trash in the Pacific

Do I know any Christians who are truly uninterested in taking care of the Earth? Maybe I know at least one. About twenty years ago I met a minister here in Sweden who devoted much of his time to working with homeless people, drug addicts etcetera. I thought he was a really admirable person, and I certainly didn't know anyone else who gave so much of his own time to help other people in need. So once I decided I would have a talk with him. "Tommy," I told him, "here you've got your chance. Please try to convince me that the Earth has a better chance to survive if we all become Christians. You know I have lost my faith. But if you manage to convince me that life on Earth may survive because of your faith, then I promise I will do my absolute utmost to become a Christian again."

Well, this is what Tommy replied. He stared into the distance and answered: "Maybe the Earth isn't meant to survive."

I knew, of course, what Tommy was talking about. I, too, had read the Book of Revelation. But believe me, this was the absolutely first time that I had come across an intellectual person who wasn't the least bit interested in discussing what could be done to at least increase the chances that life on Earth would survive. And Tommy's reasons for refusing to discuss it seemed to be that he considered the entire question a futile one: we shouldn't worry about the Earth's survival, because God has decreed that it won't survive anyway.

Like I said, I had never before come across anyone else who would take such a stark view of the Earth's survival and of humanity's duty to look after the Earth. Everyone else I had talked to had discussed technical solutions or changes in life style or global co-operation. I expected Tommy to tell me that Christian people are obliged by their faith to try to be unselfish and caring, so that we should have a better chance to tackle whatever global problem we might be facing if we were all Christians. Instead Tommy thought that the question wasn't really worth discussing. I can't tell you what a chill that gave me.

Again I want to emphasize that I consider the idea that we needn't bother to take care of the Earth a spinoff of Christian thought, not mainstream Christian thought. As for Tommy, he was a "naturally good" person, and I'm sure that he was never deliberately careless with garbage, and I'm sure he had a rather small car which didn't use much fuel, etcetera. Nevertheless: a person who wanted to be selfish and careless just might listen to Tommy and conclude that it is acceptable in the eyes of the Lord to waste and wear down the world around us, because this Earth isn't meant to last anyway.

Ann

Oh, P.S., I certainly did know at least one Christian who certainly believed that it was no use looking after the Earth because it was coming to an end any day now anyway. My grandfather. He spent most of his 94 years waiting for the Second Coming. He never got himself any life insurance, because he was convinced that he and his family would be raptured away to heaven together. I was eight years old when he told me that the end of the world would happen any day or night now. Because I had dutifully read all the religious children's books my grandfather had given me, I knew I couldn't hold a candle to all those Christian boys and girls I could read about there, so obviously I would never be let into Heaven. I couldn't sleep for weeks as I waited for Jesus to come and take my mother and father away from me, but when nothing had happened for a year, I sort of forgot about it.

Anyway, my grandfather sold his lovely house and moved his family to a small apartment as he waited for the Rapture. He never owned a car in his life. He gave away most of his possessions to the church, and he loved to give small sums of money to children he just met in the street, because he loved children and wanted to make them happy.


P.P.S. Thank you, you Christian people on these boards, who have spoken up to explain that you don't believe in what I think the bishop implied about the non-importance of taking care of the Earth. Believe me, I didn't think you would share the bishop's ideas. That is not how I view most Christians, believe me. Apart from the Pentecostalists I grew up with (and who I never dared to discuss religion with), I have never met a Christian, with the exception of Tommy, the minister, who has ever seemed to take our responsibilities to be good stewards of the Earth anything less than seriously. EDIT: I just re-read the interview with the bishop, and Lisa, I think you are right that the bishop is arguing against the idea that we are allowed to be careless with the Earth. He is not supporting that view but opposing it.

Thanks again for your responses!

Interesting topic.

I would have to say my viewpoint, and one many Christians likely espouse, is that, yes, the world is going to end, but no one actually knows when, so you live your life being good stewards of all you are given. Both the earth, and the money you make, everything within your power you take care of to the best of your abilities. If that makes me consider saving money on an automobile purchase more important than the car being "green", then so be it. That doesn't mean I want to produce more acid rain, it's just not my top priority to do all the little things to make the world last two minutes longer. Besides the fact that closer investigation of some enviro-friendly methods may not be as good as they seem, but that's another topic.

Stephnachia

Bakasi

and Ann,

and anyone else who may have only read Ann's quote without reading the entire article:

Ann quoted the bishop out of context. The words she quotes are NOT what he thinks. He was using sarcasm to ridicule an idea he does not agree with.

The quote itself reads 'sarcastic' - but maybe you have to be a lapsed Anglican to spot it.

c.

Well, after actually reading the article, I affirm what others have said. The bishop is answering a question about how his view is different from the Left Behind books, and, since he has been giving his views for the whole time before, he iterates somewhat sarcastically what the Left Behind belief is. Nothing more to it.

There are other points where I disagree with what he says, but that is neither here nor there.

Not to nit-pic, but just to clarify:

What the Bishop says is not the Left Behind belief. The Left Behind belief is the belief in the war of Armageddon, period. Everything else is the Bishop's sarcastic extrapolation.

I have re-read the article, and I have to agree with you, Vicki.

Ann

You're right, Vicki. And that is more what I meant. That the bishop was presenting a view not his own, and at least more in line with the Left Behind authors than his own. There most likely actually is someone who holds that viewpoint, but it is not the bishop or the Left Behind authors, nor is it any large branch of Christianity.