The Pseudo Conservative, Pseudo Libertarian Views of Glenn Beck and Ron Paul

Glenn Beck and Ron Paul and most of the other "small government dogma" types that push this "the government is the problem" swill like to pretend that they are "conservatives" or "libertarians".  But, they are really neither if you go by the more traditional, classic definitions of the terms.

The first tenet of original libertarianism, which has cross mojinated with modern "conservatism" at this point,is that the ONLY legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. I wonder how you can protect people's rights without protecting their person or how you can abstractly separate rights from physical well being with regards to regulations, laws, government agencies or whatever, but somehow Beck and his followers think they make sense. They don't.  Conservatism also used to be about espousing the traditional, spiritual, community values and care for neighbors or the "least of these".  Somehow, conservatism has morphed into Ayn Rand's anti altruistic, pro business, pro corporate, anti government version of reality.  It makes no sense to me and it probably doesn't make sense to you if you are reading on this website.

Chaps like Glenn Beck and Ron Paul, et al, say they want to minimize government and that no one should expect the government to protect them. He asserted that since the government can't, won't or shouldn't protect us that we need to all keep guns around and be ready to get in line for a bucket brigade in case of catastrophe as if we live in Tombstone of the old west or something.

As Ken Brooker Langston points out in his article "Why I Am Not A Libertarian", its true that of all the political groupings out there, guys like Beck and his followers have the most grandiose rhetoric. They get to spout all that stuff about freedom vs. tyranny and use the quotes the founding fathers made about King George and so on...

It's also the perfect belief system for young, uneducated or fundamentalist people that see things in stark black and white and especially young males. You don't need knowledge or experience or details or nuances on complicated issues. All you need to "get it" is to buy in to essentially ONE BIG IDEA that supposedly resolves everything- that other than a minimalist military and court system that government and taxation is evil, that all you need is more gun rights, slight protection of life by the authorities, to enforce property rights and contracts and then the "free market" AKA Ayn Rand's magical, laissez faire economic principles will take care of everything else. How do I know this? Because for a few years as a college freshman and sophomore between 1982-84 I bought it and learned ALL the arguments before I grew up and figured out that the world doesn't work that way. It never has and never will no matter what you call it, reaganomics, trickle down economics, free market capitalism, whatever. It has been tried and it has a track record of success on par with hardcore socialism, it sucks.  Someone will say that the death toll from hardcore socialism is much higher... but you can only try to make a point like that if you decide not to count the mega- millions of laborers, Indigenous people, American Indians, Africans and so on that died and are still dying in the ongoing conquest of the West and the endless quest for the gold, coal, oil, timber, cotton and gemstones.

Beck and the rest of the pseudo-conservative/libertarian's view of political realities is a caricature, a simplistic right wing fantasy and it just can't work.

The truth is actually that we live in a society that is a hybrid of pure capitalism or socialism and it has been for a very long time... It works somewhat ugly when it "works" (depending on who and where you are) at all... It has boom and bust cycles and trends, but its about as good as we can expect to do at trying to manage a complex, pluralistic country in a complicated and jacked up world, especially when we've put corporations, materialism and consumerism and the profit motive at the very pinnacle of our value system.

As for me, I don't really care if the government is big or small so long as it is doing the right things and doing them as efficiently as possible and it does not impinge too much upon my personal life.  In this approach one does not need either "small government" or "more government" dogmas.

One day guys like Beck and the rest will be mere shadowy and unpleasant memories in a world that has left them behind... assuming we don't crash and burn the planet or Western "culture" first.  Some days I am more optimistic about the future than others.  After reading about Rick Perry's latest poll numbers, today is is one of the less optimistic days.

ANWR, Oil Development and Indigenous People

I don't know why, but I am still constantly amazed at how short sighted, narrow minded, selfish and ethnocentric (or perhaps just uninformed) some people are. For instance, I listened to a long diatribe yesterday from media propagandist Glenn Beck concerning the renewed pressure to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. His basic and somewhat cartoonish thesis was,

"Screw the caribou and polar bears- let's start drilling now."

The thing is- there are several things, including the PEOPLE that live near these areas, that do not seem to be a part of public debate or consciousness on this topic at all. I believe that by any standard of spirituality or ethics this is WRONG- especially if one wears the name Christian. Christ instructed us to "love our neighbors as ourselves". Considering that, consider this:

Summary:

ANWR and Indigenous People While oil development in ANWR would provide valuable revenue for some Native Americans, such as the Inupiat, it would have potentially disastrous impacts on other Native Americans, in particular the members of the Gwich'in Nation who live near ANWR. As they have for thousands of years, the Gwich'in depend on the Porcupine caribou herd for food, clothing, and tools. The caribou are central to their spiritual life. Oil development in the 1002 area of ANWR, the calving grounds of the Porcupine herd, would likely reduce the size of the herd and alter its annual migration patterns. This would, in turn, threaten the very survival of the Gwich'in culture.
Please pray that our neighbors and Native brothers will not be forgotten and run over in the name of "progress". May God's hand be upon them and protect and keep them and may "our people" be true and just representatives of our Lord in our dealings with them.

Indigenous People

The Gwich'in of northern Canada and Alaska have lived in their Arctic homeland
since the last ice age. The Gwich'in are caribou people. There is direct archaeological
evidence that the Gwich'in have depended upon the Porcupine Caribou Herd for at
least 12,000 years. They still depend upon the caribou for their subsistence needs as
well as their cultural survival. They are firmly opposed to oil exploration or
development in the herd's calving grounds on the coastal plain of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. The Gwich'in have fought for permanent protection of the calving
grounds for more than a decade.
The calving grounds are a sacred place for the Gwich'in
"The calving grounds are on lands in Alaska, but it is our children who will
be affected by what happens there."
- Liz Hansen, Gwich'in elder from Old Crow, Yukon
"If the oil companies go into the calving grounds, it would be like drilling in
a hospital nursery. That's how we feel about it. We will do everything that
we can, everything in our power to prevent that, because it means our life."
- Norma Kassi, Gwich'in spokeswoman from Old Crow
"Our right to continue to live our traditions and to depend on the caribou
like we do is our constitutional right as Americans, it is our inherent right
as indigenous people, and our essential human right to our own means of
subsistence."
- Faith Gimmell, Gwich'in spokeswoman from Arctic Village, Alaska.

The Porcupine Caribou Herd

The 130,000-member Porcupine Caribou Herd has used the coastal plain of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as its core calving area for tens of thousands of
years. Each year the female caribou travel to the coastal plan to give birth. 40,000
calves are born each year during a two-week period at the beginning of June. A
healthy calf-survival rate is critical to the continued survival of the herd. Biologists
say that the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is a "critical habitat:"


The coastal plain contains the nutritious plants that the caribou need after a
long winter during the vulnerable first few weeks of a calf's life, the coastal
plain has fewer predators than do the mountains to the south
on the coastal plain the caribou find areas to get relief from insects -
mosquitoes suck up to a quart of blood a week from a single caribou and
disrupt feeding patterns
Oil Development and Caribou
Caribou biologists tell us that caribou during the calving and post-calving periods do
not become acclimatized to the activity associated with oil development. If oil
development is allowed in the calving grounds, the pregnant females would be
forced to give birth in the mountains to the south where calf survival rates would
likely plummet. Oil wells and pipelines would also restrict caribou migration.
In summary, state-of-the-art technology has not prevented displacement of
calving from even the newer oilfields on the North Slope, and no proven
technology exists that would ensure unrestricted passage through an
oilfield of the large mid-summer aggregations of Porcupine Caribou.
Considering the high degree of uncertainty regarding mitigation of oilfield
impacts on caribou, ensuring the integrity of the calving grounds and early
summer range of the Porcupine Caribou Herd is a compelling reason for
applying the most precautionary management to the Arctic Refuge coastal
plain. The Porcupine Herd is an international resource too important to
risk.
- excerpt from a letter from 13 caribou biologists from Alaska and Canada
"America's Serengeti"
The wildlife spectacle of the Arctic Refuge is much more than caribou. Polar bears,
grizzlies, wolverines, musk oxen and wolves are just a few of the 200 animal species
that use the coastal plain. It is also nesting and staging habitat for millions of
migratory birds. Some 125 bird species migrate to the coastal plain from four
continents, every province in Canada and every state in the US. In the offshore
waters, endangered bowhead whales, belugas and three species of seal rear their
young.
Moreover, the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain is a rare example of an
ecosystem where ecological and cultural processes continue to interact
much as they have for thousands of years . . . Five decades of biological
study and scientific research have confirmed that the coastal plain of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge forms a vital component of the biological
diversity of the Refuge and merits the same kind of permanent safeguards
and precautionary management as the rest of this original conservation
unit . . .
- excerpt from a letter from an international group of more than 240
scientists
What the oil companies don't say
development means hundreds of miles of roads and pipelines and dozens of oil
fields
caribou, musk oxen, polar bears, migratory birds and other wildlife would be
harmed by oil development
there would be chronic oil and chemical spills (there are an average of more
than 400 spills per year in the Alaskan Arctic oil fields already under
development)
oil development in the Refuge would accelerate the negative impacts of climate
change
95% of Alaska's Arctic coastal plain is already open for oil development
Geological Survey scientists predict less than a 6-month supply of oil for the US
increasing the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks by 2-3 mpg would save
more oil than could ever be found under the calving grounds
oil development would destroy the coastal plains' wilderness value forever
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, Here is a reply I got, I want to share it and my response to it mostly to clarify my meanings and their source of inspiration:

Subject: RE: ANWR, Oil Development and Indigenous People
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008

Scott,

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/caribou_con_in_search_of_anwr_truth.htm

http://www.justaverageamerican.com/the-truth-about-anwr/

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_fine_place_to_drill_115429.htm

This in about 2 minutes of research. I’m sure you’ve spent much more time than that on this topic. I’m also sure you could provide hundreds of links to blogs denouncing domestic oil exploration as: unethical, greedy, heartless, un-Christian, and more…

If there is a grain of truth to the first link above, which there appears to be, then should this “tribe” be renamed as hypocrites? Before you pray Scott…maybe you should remember that we are not tribes within a tribe. We are Americans. If there is a tribe, that should be the only one. If some of the articles above are correct, most of the Gwich’in tribe would be Canadien.

I had a very long reply typed out Scott…I deleted it all. For one reason: “I believe that by any standard of spirituality or ethics this is WRONG- especially if one wears the name Christian” What gives Scott Starr the right to judge others? Why is it un-Christian to have a belief that is opposite of yours?

Gotta go

My Reply:

Subject: RE: ANWR, Oil Development and Indigenous People
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008

Before I look at all the links- the quote, including a releveant part you excluded, you supplied was "...including the PEOPLE that live near these areas, that do not seem to be a part of public debate or consciousness on this topic at all. I believe that by any standard of spirituality or ethics this is WRONG- especially if one wears the name Christian."

The meaning was that the exclusion of the fact that there are people that live there who will pay the price for the equlibrium of their area being upset from the public consciousness and debate on the topic, or excluding elements of the issue- especially when it is done willfully and not out of ignorance is wrongful.

I did not condemn or judge anyone including Mr. Beck, who NEVER mentioned the fact that there are ANY people up there who are part of the issue. I made a moral statement. What is different about saying something like that from saying, "Homosexuality and same sex marriage are wrong"?

I don't need a "right to judge" on this- because I am not judging- I made a statement, from discernment, about morality and/or ethical standards that is not only biblical but nearly universal- at least among the sections of humanity that have any conscience remaining. I see it as no more judgmental than saying people should not abuse their children or use drugs. I believe that people should not abuse their children or use drugs- some people evidently believe that these things are ok... so am I really judging somebody for believing something opposite of what I believe? I think not. If one cannot make a statement about principles or practices that they discern as wrong being wrong- then there's a lot of people in politics and in the news commentary business and that have opinions that are in deep trouble- And we'd better strike the word hypocrites from our discourse and vocabulary- because its use means one is judging- and in fact may be applying to others a standard that is not being applied to themselves- which is ironically and maybe paradoxically (especially paradoxically or self contradictory the way you used it) what the word means .

The only other thing in your reply that is a concern to me is this; We are Americans. If there is a tribe, that should be the only one. If some of the articles above are correct, most of the Gwich’in tribe would be Canadien."

I am not sure what you are implying- but it seems that you're saying Americans are the only people worth our consideration on moral or ethical questions like this? Since they are Canadians- should we disregard them along with the caribou and the bears? Well, if there is a tribe- Human should be that tribe. That's biblical and I would certainly challenge you to come up with any of Christ's teachings that would dispute that- considering he taught us to love our neighbors and enemies as well.

I love ya man, just be careful about this kind of approach to things- this kind of attitude, as I have addressed on other topics in the past, is one reason that much of the rest of the world has much distaste for Americans- and "We" end up paying for that in blood and treasure as well as spiritually. God does not show favoritism- is not pro- American and not a nationalist or he also cares about Canadians and Indians, his creation, etc.

The scriptures are emphatic and replete with teaching that presents God as not judging or treating man, any man, with respect of persons. In other words, God is just and equitable in his dealings with man- Romans 2 speaks directly to your concerns about judging- but is also emphatic about applying standards universally. Maybe that's a problem for us both- for you with regards to American nationalism and me with regards to Indigenous people. But, I have no illusions that Indians are above reproach- all I have done is insist that the fact that they are there and they should be considered- and that their rights should be respected. I also have not said that ANWR should not be drilled- but that several things should be considered carefully and looked as part of the equation before acting and if and when the drilling is done. At least in my own view thats a perfectly sound position. Anyhow, look at Romans 2 and pay special attention to verse 11:

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? 5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."^[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Acts 10:34-35
34 Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.

Collossians 3:25

25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.

1st Peter 1:13-25

Be Holy

13Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. 14As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. 15But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; 16for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."^[a] 17Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. 18For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
22Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.^[b] 23For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. 24For,
"All men are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall,
25but the word of the Lord stands forever."^[c] And this is the word that was preached to you.
Footnotes:

1. 1 Peter 1:16 Lev. 11:44,45; 19:2; 20:7
2. 1 Peter 1:22 Some early manuscripts from a pure heart
3. 1 Peter 1:25 Isaiah 40:6-8

Love ya man.

Subject: RE: ANWR, Oil Development and Indigenous People
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:47:25 -0500

You’re right, I did a very poor job of expressing myself. Here’s the deal Scott…over the years you have championed the plight of Native Americans. In and of itself, this is fine…all people are worthy of a Champion. But, a few points from my perspective…

1) When do ‘Native Americans’ become plain old Americans? Why does there need to be a distinction? Why is their plight sadder than that of poor black Americans shooting each other in the ‘hoods? Or poor white Americans in the hills of Kentucky or West Virginia? Or red-skinned ‘Native’ Americans living in poverty due to alcohol abuse? This list is almost endless, even when only considering needy Americans. You make my point in a way, only you put it in a better perspective. We are of the HUMAN race. But as a people we are Americans. I made the statement in regards to Canadian Indians because a large part of that particular tribe lives in Canada and would be unaffected by ANWR.

2) Well….forget number 2. The truth is, I just don’t have the energy for this type of debate right now Scott.

Let me instead try to summarize my feelings. I don’t understand what is sacred about a patch of ground in Northern Alaska. I don’t understand why it is important to protect a very small number of peoples’ ability to hunt caribou. It is after all 2008…there are several ways to put dinner on the table. I don’t understand why we cannot, as a people (remember, American people), be as self-reliant as possible in regards to our own energy needs. Why should we not look for any way possible to reduce oil purchases from countries that view us as heretics and the enemy?

I agree with many of your perspectives Scott. But evaluate your own post below. Why are billions of barrels of oil denied to OTHER Americans to protect this tribe? And for that matter, protect them from what? Do the research and see how many times this same tribe leased their own land for oil exploration. Or tried to and failed. They just don’t seem to be victims here. Their plight looks more to be sour grapes at their own poor political and financial decisions in the past.

In regards to my statement on judging others and hypocrisy…does this shed a better light on why I would be a tad perturbed? Why are we calling into account a Christian’s standard of morals or ethics in regards to this issue??? There are Christians dying for the cause of Jesus every day. We should be championing those suffering in the Sudan. These are the issues of our world. I know I will sound callous, but I don’t care about the caribou. Nor do I care if German Americans can get German beer. Or if Japanese Americans have trouble finding good sushi. Whimsical, but you get my point. The world around us changes. That happens in every country, to every native tribe.

Ok, off to supper.

Love you too

My reply:

These are good questions. One thing I have learned to do is view these kinds of things- especially among friends- not as debates but rather as discussions or dialogs. That is difficult I know even among the best of friends- especially when you factor in people's passion for the subjects. But, its doable. If you can think of it that way it doesn't seem so urgent to go back and forth and takes a lot less energy.

I don't wanna write something long here- but do want to make a few comments.

First I read all the links you sent. The first one is easily the most well written and objective. I wouldn't say its perfectly objective or flawless- but the case is well presented.

There are a few things you stated that you don't understand that I can give some insight into- maybe even without being long winded- like that part about sacred. I won't go into the religious aspects as of yet. But let me comment about the question " When do ‘Native Americans’ become plain old Americans?"

What you have to grasp first is that despite the matter of national citizenship their is still a strong cultural distinction betweeen the traditional views of tribes (at least in the ideal expression of culture) and mainstream American culture. In many ways these differences are irreconciliable.
It is much the same way between Christian culture and the mainstream collectivist culture. For Christian culture to be absorbed into mainstream culture would mean the death of Christianity- at least authentic Christianity- which as I have admonished is actually dangerously near. So, at the bottom, certain aspects of Native culture cannot be absorbed without the all out cultural death of Native identity. I am not sure how nuanced your thinking on this is- but the call for becoming a plain old American is in many ways a call for the complete assimilation of one culture into another. To answer your question of when this will happen- I will say not within our lifetimes our within the next few generations.
If you ask why there needs to be a persistent, separate Native identity at all- I would answer because Indian culture (again in its ideal form) is not compartmentalized, separating the spiritual life from the corporate community life as mainstream American life mostly is. Indian culture (ideally) is holistic and spiritual and its values inseparable from its citizenship in the U.S. or otherwise. Indians, or Idigenous North American Peoples, are in a unique position where they are at once full American citizens and yet are members of two distinct cultures that overlap somewhat in areas and not at all in others- again much the same as Christian culture (is supposed to be- ideally).

To wrap this up I will give an example from a recent "discussion". The quotations were put around the word discussion because the person I was "discussing" with became quite upset about my refusal to give in to his reasoning and considered it an argument when I did not consider it one because I was not nearly so emotionally charged up as he was and was merely stating my point of view. He told me I was a racist in fact- which after he calmed down and actually listened he admitted was wrong.

He asked me whether I would rather be viewed as a man or as an Indian man. I explained that this was a fallacious question- and not so much a question as a gambit or mechanism by which he was leading me to a syllogism or logical trap. He vehemently insisted that I MUST answer the question as man or Indian man. So, with the qualification that this was a fallacious question I answered indian man. That was when I became a racist in his view. But, by much persistence and patience I explained as I did above that such distinctions cannot and should not be made. To demonstrate, I asked him if he'd rather be considered as just a man or as a Christian man. After he calmed down enough- he admitted that he understood what I was saying and understood that you can't just force this false dichotomy or false separation on people. I am not just a man, just an American or just a Cherokee or just a Christian or child of God- I am simultaneously all of these and all of these bring a certain set of propisitions and considerations to the table- and none of these can be separated out without dehumanizing me and/or robbing me of part of my identity. Some would call this take on things multiculturalism and call it a curse. To that I would say that giving something a politically charged label and dubbing it as a negative does not by any means close the subject or the debate- its an oversimplification which is the tool of all propagandists.

That's already more than I intended to say. But, to conclude for now, let me say that acknowledging the rights or the problems that would be caused for some people in the vicinity of ANWR by the drilling enterprises is not showing favoritism for the few over the many. Niether does it show inequality. Equality and assimilation are not the same thing. Lastly, if you separate the caribou and other wildlife in the equation out and isolate them like you suggest it is much easier not to care about them I admit. But, as stated in my initial message you cannot really do that- they are part of an ecosystem and part and parcel to the human equation. If you say you don't care about them- you are really saying you don't care about the people or the big picture either. I would not saddle you with that accusation, because i know you better than that- but would admonish you to choose words carefully.

One more thing, concerning your thoughts about the importance of missionary work- consider this article i found about missionary work among the Gwich'iin.

source: http://www.restoringeden.org/campaigns/ANWR/threereasonsprotectANWR

Three reasons why all Christians should support protecting the Arctic Refuge

By Peter Illyn, March 15, 2005

As a minister in an evangelical Christian stewardship ministry, I believe the current push to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to industrial oil drilling is an enormous mistake.

The problem is not that the benefits would be so small – an estimated six-month supply of oil. The bigger issue is our responsibility before God to steward a unique natural and national treasure and our ability to exercise some self- control. The Refuge must be protected for three sets of reasons: biological, moral and symbolic.

The Arctic Refuge is a place of biological wonder. All throughout the Alaska and Canada boreal forest, during the same week in the spring, scattered groups of caribou hear the identical inner voice and know that "it is the time." The pregnant mothers stop eating, silently raise their heads toward the north, and with a slow, steady walk embark on an arduous journey. During their six-week pilgrimage to the herd's birthing grounds on the Refuge, the caribou initially are in groups of five, then ten, then hundreds, until they reach hundreds of thousands.

The caribou, dutiful to some unseen force, are drawn like iron shavings to a magnet. They struggle through deep snow over steep mountain glaciers and then swim across swollen rivers of ice. Many die, yet the caribou keep walking--steadfast, faithful, obedient to the spark of God within them. Two months later, when the caribou finally reach the refuge, they collectively give birth to their calves. Within a week the Refuge is full of moon-eyed calves, running and pronging in the meadow, overcome with a bliss rooted in the simple joy of life.

In all this, I cannot help but see the hand of God, the hand of a Creator who calls all creation to fruitfulness and then gives each species some wonderful form of divine providence to make that fruitfulness possible. Migration is one of nature's ways to be obedient to the wisdom of God. Be it a monarch butterfly's paper-thin wings struggling for 3,000 miles to reach a grove of trees in Mexico or the songbirds at my backyard feeder, migration is a species' sacred expression of honoring God's goodness, wisdom and providence.

If we saw the earth from God's perspective--in both time and scope-- we would see a constant motion of seasons, colors, tides, swirling clouds and flowing rivers. We would see migrations: salmon and whales, terns and geese, butterflies and hummingbirds, and caribou.

The wild instinct to migrate is evidence that God loves all of creation--not just humanity. Migrations should make us humble and small in spirit. Protecting the migrations of our fellow creatures is a test of our stewardship, our faithfulness, our willingness to think long-term and to be other-minded. It is a test of who and what we serve--for it was Jesus who stated, "You cannot serve both God and Money."

Drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge is at heart a moral question. Are we willing to risk unraveling the caribou migration--the last great mammal migration left on the earth? Is this really our best thinking? Is it wise, faithful and prudent? Is it good stewardship? Or is it proof that we as a nation have become so short-sighted, mean-spirited, and self-centered that we no longer have boundaries that we are unwilling to cross; that nothing is off limits anymore?

The oil industry promises that this time there will be little environmental damage, but there is no evidence to back their claim. Instead, what you see in other fields in Alaska is ongoing pollution, including an oil spill virtually every day. If we allow drilling in the Refuge, there will be no going back.

Judeo-Christian theology defines holy as something set aside either by God for a divine purpose, or by humans, for service to God. It is time to consider the Arctic Refuge as a holy place as the Gwich'in people of the Arctic long have. They call the Refuge Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit, or the Sacred Place Where Life Begins. The caribou's birthing grounds are such a consecrated place that it is taboo for a Gwich'in to ever set foot there. For thousands of years, the Gwich'in people have seen themselves as stewards of the caribou, dependent upon them for food, clothing, tools and shelter. Theirs is still a culture where prosperity is measured by ways other than money and possessions.

The general public may see the Gwich'in struggle to protect the Refuge as a simple human rights concern--and it is that. But there's more to the story. Over 100 years ago, Hudson Stuck, a mountain- climbing missionary on a dogsled journey in Alaska, shared his faith with the Gwich'in people. They converted to Christianity―and their faith remains vibrant and strong today. Last year I had the privilege of speaking at numerous evangelical Christian colleges with the Rev. Trimble Gilbert, an Anglican priest, customary chief and tribal elder of the Gwich'in people. At age 70, he talks about his years growing-up, remembering how he would awaken in his tent to mornings as cold as 70 below zero and snowshoe to the prayer tent, where the whole clan would gather for daily prayers before heading out to hunt and fish.

Rev. Trimble had a simple message for the college-aged Christians: "Remember that we Gwich'in are your family in Christ." The Gwich'in are asking the United States, as a nation founded on Christian values, not to desecrate their sacred lands. They are also asking the Christian church to stand with them, to raise its voice, to "speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves" (Proverbs 31:8) as advocates for their people and for the caribou they depend upon.

Last, whether we drill for oil in the Refuge will indicate symbolically who we are and what we value as a nation. If we allow the desecration of this place--set aside by God and held sacred by the native people--just to make a quick profit, then we must face our failed faithfulness as stewards of God's creation. Every addict believes that the painless solution to his or her craving is to increase the supply of their obsession, though that may wreak great devastation on his family. In our automobile-dependent culture, have we, like the drug addict, lost such self-control that we are willing to harm a place of biological wonder and our caribou-dependent brothers and sisters in the faith who live there?

Christians in many states are struggling with debates over creationism-versus-evolution in the public schools. Following the 2004 election our new Congress is more reactive to conservative Christian values than ever before, yet ironically the Refuge is now under its greatest attack.

Where is the rest of the church's voice on issues of stewardship and human justice? Our silence is deafening. If we drill in the Arctic Refuge, this place of God’s wonder, then we are truly trading the sacred for the propane (pun sadly intended).

The Dead Heart- Midnight Oil

This one goes out to indigenous people all over the world.

lyrics:

We don't serve your country
don't serve your king
Know your custom don't speak your tongue
White man came took everyone

We don't serve your country
We don't serve your king
White man listen to the songs we sing
White man came took everything

We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken

We don't serve your country
We don't serve your king
Know your custom don't speak your tongue
White man came took everyone

We don't need protection
don't need your hand
just keep your promise on where we stand
We will listen- we'll understand

We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken
We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken

Mining companies, pastoral companies
Uranium companies
Collected companies
Got more right than people
Got more say than people

Forty thousand years can make a difference to the state of things
The dead heart lives here

The Misuse of "Radah" (dominion)

source

'Radah'

In Gen 1:26-28, God uses the word 'radah', a Hebrew word that is often translated as 'have dominion over'? But we Western Christians (and Jews?) have misunderstood its meaning. It is a word that is used only a dozen times in the Old Testament, and thus is rather special in its meaning.

We have taken it to mean 'dominate over' just as a mediaeval ruler or potentate would dominate over his subjects, using them for his own ends, his own pleasure, his own prestige, his own wars, etc. But an examination of 'radah' shows that this is NOT the type of 'dominion' that we are called upon to have over the creation. For example, 'radah' is used in Ezek 34:4, which shows the wrong type of 'radah'. The use of 'radah' there shows that God condemns such an attitude:

"Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled [radah] them harshly and brutally." (2-5).

Whilst we might argue precisely how this applies, I am here referring to it at a higher level, namely that it shows the heart of God, whose image we are made in. And that image is tied up with our 'radah' of the creation.

Our 'radah', of the creation, is not to be with harshness and cruelty and selfishness. Our 'radah' is to be, not for our own sake, but for the sake of the one ruled, that is, for the sake of the creation. We should heal those parts of creation that are sick, bind up those parts that are injured, bring back those parts that are straying, search for those parts that have become lost, as it were.

So we 'radah' creation to represent God to it, to develop and refine and beautify it for its own sake, rather than for ours. (cf. the notion of Love: giving for the other. God is Love.)

Note: This Creation Mandate has never been rescinded. It is still in force for us, even in this gospel period.

The Creation Matters to God

In Genesis 1:26-28, God gives humankind 'dominion' over his Creation. Many have seemed to assume this justifies our 'domination' of Creation. The 'domination' we have exercised has had the following characteristics:

• We have treated the Creation as though it were ours for the taking and use.
• In particular, we have treated is as mere raw materials to satisfy our desires, and our economic-technical systems.
• This has often - in all cultures - led to cruelty in our dealing with animals.
• Even when we have not been brutal, we have usually treated the natural Creation as a mere backdrop to the human drama, of salvation (if Christians) or of progress (if materialists).
• Thus we have not usually allowed that Creation has any meaning in its own right.
• The above points have been exacerbated in some Christians who have assumed that the physical Creation is under a curse and will be done away with, so it does not much matter, in eternal terms.

Here is an exposition of passages of Scripture that show that the Creation is important to God, and should also be important to us. Ecological damage is an evil in God's eyes. And the creation will be redeemed just as humanity will be. A similar message, though in a different style, can be found in a wider discussion of why Christians in particular should be 'green'.

Gen 1:26-28, Gen 2:15: The purpose, role of humanity

The purpose, role of humanity: to cultivate, guard, steward, manage - for the sake of God and of the creation itself. See next.

(NB. Westminster confession: Chief end of Man: to glorify God and enjoy him forever: no: to steward the Creation.) (Link also with: we are God's representatives, ambassadors, sons, trusted servants: to show him forth, be like him, have his attitudes. Also God is Love)

Gen 1:26-28, 'Radah'

What is 'radah', the Hebrew word used in Gen 1:26,28 that is often translated as 'have dominion over'? It is a word that is used only a dozen times in the Old Testament, and thus is rather special in its meaning.

We have taken it to mean 'dominate over' just as a mediaeval ruler or potentate would dominate over his subjects, using them for his own ends, his own pleasure, his own prestige, his own wars, etc. But an examination of 'radah' shows that this is NOT the type of 'dominion' that we are called upon to have over the creation. For example, 'radah' is used in Ezek 34:4, which shows the wrong type of 'radah'. The use of 'radah' there shows that God condemns such an attitude:

"Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled [radah] them harshly and brutally." (2-5).

Whilst we might argue precisely how this applies, I am here referring to it at a higher level, namely that it shows the heart of God, whose image we are made in. And that image is tied up with our 'radah' of the creation.

Our 'radah', of the creation, is not to be with harshness and cruelty and selfishness. Our 'radah' is to be, not for our own sake, but for the sake of the one ruled, that is, for the sake of the creation. We should heal those parts of creation that are sick, bind up those parts that are injured, bring back those parts that are straying, search for those parts that have become lost, as it were.

So we 'radah' creation to represent God to it, to develop and refine and beautify it for its own sake, rather than for ours. (cf. the notion of Love: giving for the other. God is Love.)

Note: This Creation Mandate has never been rescinded. It is still in force for us, even in this gospel period.

Psa 97:1, Psa 98:7-8, Psa 96:10-13. Creation delights in God.

Various psalms like those mentioned expect various parts of creation to delight in God and in his justice. The seas are to roar, trees to clap their hands, etc.

While these passages are picturesque, they do express a truth: that creation rejoices in God and God's ways. Each thing 'rejoices' in the way appropriate to it; e.g. a tree would 'rejoice' in the way that a tree can, and so on. Each thing rejoices because God's ways bring health, bounty, true prosperity, shalom.

All creation, including human and non-human together, find that God's ways are good, and to be shouted about.

Romans 8:19. Creation and God's 'Sons'

Romans 8:19 says that all creation waits with eager longing, groans, until God reveals his sons.

The Greek word for 'sons' is not that used for 'children' or 'make offspring', but is 'hios': those who are like the father in attitude, will, decision-making tendencies, etc. The father of those times would, when he reckoned his male child had come to this state of maturity, take his son to the public place and announce "This is my son". Meaning "I trust him to choose, behave, decide like me, and will stand all his promises he makes."

God has sons, those who come to the maturity in Christ in such a way that we have the attitude, will, decision-making tendencies that God himself has. God is Love; his sons will be love, rather than selfishness. This links with the type of 'radah' that we should display.

Now, this makes sense of Romans 8:19. As we saw above, God's creation 'rejoices' in God's ways, when it is treated as God would. So, in this period in which creation suffers the harm caused by selfish humanity who exercise wrong type of 'radah' over it, it is eagerly longing for those human beings who will truly be God's sons (hios) and behave towards it like God would.

So, when God's sons are revealed (or appear on the scene), the creation rejoices. Because they are like God, and will treat it like God does. Or like God would. (This links too with our role and purpose, and the idea of being God's ambassadors and representatives.)

'Tsedeq'

Now, what is this way in which God would treat the creation? The clearest understanding of it is the Hebrew word 'tsedeq', which is translated both justice and righteousness. Paul Marshall has defined 'tsedeq' as 'Maintaining right relationships among all things in the created order.' (For fuller discussion of this, see tsedeq.html.)

Note that it is relational rather than individualistic or state-centred in meaning. Note also that it goes beyond legal frameworks. Note that, though translated 'righteousness', 'tsedeq' is not goodness; though translated 'justice' it is not legal judgement or retribution. Both are tsedeq. The meanings we normally apply to 'justice' and 'righteousness' are distortions, arising from what happens when we start with the presupposition that the Creation is of no value. If it is with all creation, then all creation is important. Let's see if that is so.

Jer 12:4. Ecological results of our sin.

This verse clearly shows that ecological harm comes from sin and evil in human society. It links ecology with righteousness. We tend to think that God is only interested in righteousness, and does not want us to be too concerned about ecology. But in fact they are closely intertwined.

The Lord's care specifically for non-human creation

But does God really love and value his creation? All we have above so far is a deduction that he does; are there any scriptures that show clearly that he does love and value his creation?

• Jonah 4:11 The Lord can concern specifically for animals
• Psa 145:9 The Lord has compassion on all he made
• Psa 36:6 Men and animals are in your care
• Lev 25:7 God has care for wild as well as domestic animals
• Lev 26:34 The land itself enjoys rest
• Lev 26:43 .. even without people
• Prov 12:10 We are to look after animals

Job 38. God has purposes beyond humanity.

But maybe God only values his creation because it provides food and resources for humanity? And, without humanity, it has no meaning? While it is certainly true that humanity is the pinnacle of God's creation and that without humanity creation was only 'good' and not 'very good', God's words in Job 38 and 39 show that God has purposes in his creation that do not centre on humanity. These two chapters are saying, in effect: "There are wild things, Job, that are important to me, even though they are not useful to humankind and even a threat to humankind."

Rev 11:18. "Destroy those who destroy the earth."

In Rev 11:18 we find an interesting plea by the angels to God in his role as final judge. They say "the time has come to destroy those who destroy the earth."

And who is destroying the earth today? We are, those of us for whom manufacturers used to create refrigerators filled with CFCs, those of us for whom electric power is created that brings global warming, those of us who use our cars without thinking and when we could walk or cycle, and thus produce greenhouse gases, those of us who demand cheap food from all over the world and thus indirectly the destruction of rainforests and local communities, those of us who demand low taxes so that Government does not properly clean our waste, and the seas become polluted, those of us who ... are, by our expectations, habits, demands, are forcing others to destroy the earth.

Heb 1:1-3, John 3:16, Eph 1:10, Col 1:20. Salvation goes beyond humanity.

We tend to think that the end state is concerned with Christ and humanity (e.g. Christ and his Bride, the mass of saved humanity). But Hebrews 1:1-3 says that Christ will inherit 'all things', not just humanity. Note also the integration of these 'all things' with humanity and forgiveness in these verses.

(So, if we mess up the creation, with pollution or by driving species to extinction, as we do, then we are damaging Christ's inheritance. We claim to love him; do we? Or are we carelessly letting his inheritance be less than it would otherwise be?)

Notice also that that famous verse John 3:16, tells us that God so loved the world; that is, the creation, not just humanity. It specifically does not say "God so loved humankind that he gave his Son...".

In Col 1:20 and Eph 1:10 we find similar sentiments: The whole universe is to be reconciled with God, summed up in Christ, not just humanity.

Rom 8: Creation will one day be set free from its bondage to decay.

But is not the creation to be burned up at Christ's second coming? Not if Romans 8 is true. Rather, it will be set free from the tendency to decay. It will share the glorious freedom of the sons of God.

Notice Matt 24:37-41. When Christ comes again, "One will be taken and the other left." Who will be left? We assume that the righeous ones will be taken from this earth, to escape it, and the wicked ones will be left, and destroyed. But look a few verses back; Jesus very explicitly compared the future division of humanity with that in the days of Noah. There it was the wicked who were taken away; the righteous were the ones who were left.

The problem is that for centuries we have assumed that the creation is unimportant to God, and will be destroyed; that idea has more to do with pagan Greek thinking than with what is revealed in Scripture. In fact, the earth will survive (though renewed and resurrected just as we will be).

This post is a continuation of:

The Meaning of Life, All of Creation and Worship

A Biblical View of the Environment

A Biblical View of the Environment

D. Massimiliano Lorenzini

All Scripture quotations are taken from the King James Bible unless otherwise indicated.

There are many views and opinions concerning the environment representing a wide range of world views. With this essay I intend to present a biblical view of the environment including its origin, present state, and future destiny.

Origin

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). The Bible tells us that God existed before the universe and that He created it. For more details on the creation account read chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. Scientific Creationism also reveals intelligent design in the creation, thus testifying of an intelligent Creator.1

The purpose of creation is to worship and bring glory to God. "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork" (Ps. 19:1). See also Ps. 148 and Is. 40:25,26. It also testifies of God's qualities. "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20).

Man is made in God's image. "And God said, Let us make man in our image" (Gen. 1:26). (Note: The plural pronoun testifies of the Trinity.) While every created thing has value in itself, man alone is created in the image of God. This contradicts the Eastern monism philosophy which says all is one.2 William B. Badke, author of Project Earth,3 says that the earliest responsibility of man and the only mandate given him concerning interaction with the earth is found in Gen. 2:15 which says, "The LORD God placed the man in the Garden of Eden as its gardener, to tend and care for it" (The Living Bible). The Hebrew word for tend can also mean "to serve" and the word for care may be translated "to keep safe, preserve, protect." This mandate has never been rescinded.

God gave Adam and Eve dominion in the earth (Gen. 1:28). This means that the human race is to be in charge of the stewardship of the earth and to nurture it, not dominate and exploit it for selfish motives.

"Historian Lynn White was correct in placing some blame for environmental decay on Christianity. But it is a misunderstanding of the Bible, not God's word itself, that is at fault here,"4 says Tom Sider, professor of theology and culture, Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and president of Evangelicals for Social Action. British author Catherine von Ruhland says, "Christianity is often criticised as being the reason for much of the damage that has occurred on the planet. But we should make clear to the critics that it is not our faith, but a combination of scientific theory and industrial progress among unbelievers and our own wrong understanding of God's Word that has brought about destruction."5

Present State

The event that kicked off our present state, both physically and spiritually, is the fall of man. Along with the mandate of stewardship of the Garden, God told Adam and Eve that they had free access to anything in the Garden except the fruit of one tree which would bring physical and spiritual death (Gen. 2:16,17). This was simply a test of man's love and obedience to his Creator. God wanted a relationship based on choice and without the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil man would not have had any choice to please or displease God. Needless to say man ate the forbidden fruit and here we are today.

Sin is the breaking of God's commandment and it is sin that is the major environmental threat. Physical death and the ground being cursed are just two results of the fall (Gen. 3:17-19). By choosing to disobey our Creator and live in sin the Bible says that the land and animals mourn (Hos. 4:1-3). Sin has such a violent effect on the environment that the Bible says the land will vomit out the sinning inhabitants (Lev. 18:25). Sin is what motivates the destruction of the environment for financial gain (1 Tim. 6:10).

But God promises to heal the land if we will turn from our wicked ways (2 Chr. 7:14). (Understand that there will not be complete restoration until God recreates the earth, 1 Pet. 3:13 and Rev. 21:1). By turning to God and being filled with His Spirit we can have the sensitivity to people and the environment that is necessary (Rom. 8). Indeed, sensitivity to others will affect our treatment of the environment. For example, if we know that there are people who live downstream from us and depend on a river we use, we should be careful to not dump pollution into the river so they can have water that they can use. By our sensitivity to the people who live downstream from us, we will change our treatment of the river we use to do what we can to provide safe and clean water for others who depend upon the same river. Matthew 25 shows that insensitivity to people is also insensitivity to God and will bring His judgement.

Tony Campolo also says that since nature worships God, (Ps. 148) ecological destruction interferes with and silences the worship of God.6 He calls this blasphemy.

Ron Sider says, "The first purpose of the nonhuman creation is to glorify God not to serve us."4 The Bible says, "The earth is the Lord's" (Ps. 24:1). We must realize our role in creation is to worship God and to be stewards of the earth. A steward is a caretaker, not an owner.

Unlike monism, which says all is one, a biblical view, while agreeing that in ecology all things are interconnected, says in the spiritual realm there are two orders -- the regenerated and the fallen. The fall that Adam and Eve experienced has carried on over to every human since (Rom. 3:10, 23). But there is hope of regeneration. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22).

God is deeply concerned with His creation and this is shown in many passages of Scripture. In Gen. 9:9,10 God made a covenant with all of creation not to destroy it with a flood ever again and He set the rainbow in the cloud to be a token of that covenant. In Job 39:1,2 God shows that He is with the wild animals when they give birth. Matt. 6:25-30 shows that God feeds the birds and clothes the fields. It is by His power that creation holds together or consists as Col. 1:16, 17 points out. Because God is so intimately concerned with His creation He promises to restore it.

Future Destiny

"Everything that Christianity hopes for is wrapped up with the ultimate fate of the earth," says Glenn Paauw, author of The Garden of God.7 The Bible teaches that salvation is for all of creation, not just humans (Is. 11, Ez. 47). This world will be burned up with fire (2 Pet. 3) and God will create a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21:1, Is. 65:17). True physical peace will reign (Hos. 2:18) and God will live with His people on the Earth (Rev. 21:3). Until that day Christians continue to pray, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10).

Some may say, "If the world will be destroyed by fire and recreated why should we be concerned about the environment?" Well let me sum up some reasons given thus far and introduce some new ones: 1) Destruction of the environment is blasphemy against God; 2) Stewardship is a responsibility; 3) Other people suffer because of the destruction of the environment; 4) Animals suffer; 5) Creation itself suffers (Rom. 8:19-21); 6) The danger is massive and urgent; 7) Common sense tells us to properly manage our resources to maintain a sustainable yield; 8) and I would like to leave you with an idea from Tony Campolo which may be the most practical reason of all. He says the sooner or later we will all get involved in the environmental movement because sooner or later we will all get hurt because of what we're doing to the environment.6

------------------

1. For information on Scientific Creationism see Institute for Creation Research at http://www.icr.org.

2. For more information on monism see James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog, 3d ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

3. Badke, William B. (1991). Project Earth: Preserving the World God Created. Portland, Multnomah Press.

4. Sider, Ron J. (1993, June 21). Redeeming the Environmentalists. Christianity Today.

5. von Ruhland, Catharine (1991). Going Green: A Christian Guide. Great Britain, Marshall Pickering.

6. Campolo, Tony (1992). How to Rescue the Earth Without Worshiping Nature. Nashville, Thomas Nelson, Inc.

7. Paauw, Glenn (1992). The Garden of God. Colorado Springs, International Bible Society.

A Christian View of the Environment

Here is a basic outline of a lesson on this subject that mirrors much of the other material I have developed on this topic. In the bibliography you'll see a book entitled , Project Earth: Preserving the World God Created. It is one of the best presentations of this subject I have ever found. I had a dream last night that revealed part of the way I can relate to you on this. You commented in our talk yesterday that many indigenous folk express a desire to honor creation. This is not entirely accurate. The matter is actually one of respecting creation and expressing gratitude to the Creator for it. Many of the worl'd ills today come from a basic lack of acknowledgment and gratitude to God for what we have... for every breath of life... every drop of water... every link in the food chain. When the proper relationship is there and the proper gratitude is comprehended and expressed it greatly enhances one's view of God, the Creator's, role in our lives and hence greatly expands one's spirituality and ones prayer life. Start with that. Here is the lesson. I have much more to offer on this: A Christian View of the Environment Ray Bohlin The source of our ecological crisis lies in man's fallen nature and abuse of his dominion. Man is a rebel who has set himself at the center of the universe. Man has used his dominion wrongly. Man has exploited created things as though they are nothing in themselves and as though he has an autonomous right to use them as he pleases. Man's fallen nature has expressed itself with regard to the creation in his use of time and money. Man's uncontrolled greed and haste have led to the deterioration of the environment. We have been guided by the maxim that what we can do, we will do, particularly if it is the least time-consuming and least expensive alternative. The solution to the environmental crisis is the witness of the Christian community within the proper relationship between God, man, and nature. We are called to exhibit our dominion rightly. As Christians we must treat nature as having value in itself and exercise dominion without being destructive (Matt. 6:26, 10:29). This requires both a human and economic cost. There are numerous Old Testament examples of the care with which Israel was to treat the environment. Israel was to care for the land (Lev. 25: 1–12). Israel was to treat domesticated animals properly and respect wildlife (Deut. 25:4 and 22:6). The Lord judges those who misuse the land (Isa. 5:8–10). The Lord nurtured and cared for His creation (Job 38:25–28; Ps. 104:27–30). As the second Adam, Jesus redeems all of the effects of the curse (1 Cor. 15:21–22; Rom. 5:12–21). The first Adam brought a curse on man's relationship with his God, his relationship with other people, and his relationship with nature (Gen. 3:14–19). Though the earth will eventually be destroyed, we should still work for healing now. As Christians, we can be rightly related to the creation. Christians, of all people, should not be destroyers. We may cut down a tree to build a house or make a fire, but not just to cut it down. We have the right to rid our house of ants, but we should not forget to honor the ant where God made it to be. When the church puts belief into practice, our humanity and sense of beauty are restored. The church in the past has failed in its mission of steward of the earth. We have spoken out loudly against the materialism of science but have done little to show that we are not dominated by a technological orientation towards nature. We are losing an evangelistic opportunity: many are seeking an improved environment, yet they also see that most Christians don't care. While there is not necessarily anything wrong with profit in the marketplace, we must voluntarily limit ourselves and not allow something to be done just because it can. If individually and as a Christian community we can treat with integrity the things God has made, and do so lovingly because they are His, things change. For Further Reading Badke, William. Project Earth: Preserving the World God Created. Portland, Ore.: Multnomah, 1991. This book is a strongly written attempt to jar the church out of its environmental doldrums. Badke persuasively argues that the church needs to be at the forefront of the environmental movement because only Christianity has the right reasons to do so. The strict anti-growth perspective could have been toned down some. Especially helpful is an appendix of environmental tips for households and churches. Beisner, E. Calvin. Prospects for Growth: A Biblical View of Population, Resources, and the Future. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1990. This book provides a carefully documented apologetic for the proposition that statistics can't always be believed. As bad as the environmental situation is, it is not as bad as some would have us believe. There is still a great deal about this earth that we don't know. Predictions concerning the future can be hopelessly flawed. DeWitt, Calvin B., ed. The Environment and the Christian: What Can We Learn from the New Testament? Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1991. A collection of essays defending an environmental ethic from a strictly New Testament perspective. What comes across clearly, however, is that the Old Testament still contains the foundation for any environmental ethic for a Christian. The New Testament adds to and confirms the Old Testament ethic in regards to nature. A criticism is that the book does not offer a strong enough rebuke of New Age thinking; Christianity is only offered as an "alternative." Elsdon, Ron. Bent World: A Christian Response to the Environmental Crisis. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1981. Elsdon contributes a significant amount of information on the extent of the environmental crisis and the shortage of resources. He also outlines the basis of a Christian response and what options are available, both in attitude and practical steps. Fumento, Michael. Science Under Siege: Balancing Technology and the Environment. New York, NY: William Morrow, 1993. Michael Fumento skillfully investigates some of the biggest environmental scares of the last decade, such as alar, dioxin, agent orange, magnetic fields, and others, and concludes that the science on these issues is far from settled. Conflicting studies abound. Fumento also points out that many environmentalist organizations stand to gain financially whenever a new scare is either created or exaggerated. Schaeffer, Francis. Pollution and the Death of Man: A Christian View of Ecology. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale, 1970. Much of the skeleton of the above outline is derived from this book. Though it dates back to 1970, it is still the best short treatment that deals with the environmental issue as a whole. While you won't find a lot of data concerning the ecological crisis, Schaeffer will walk you through how to think about this complex topic within the scope of a Christian world view.