Christianity and Science, Creation Care, Current Events, Science, theology

Caring for Creation: A discussion among evangelicals

I recently had the wonderful opportunity to attend the Evangelical Philosophical Society annual meeting (check out my thoughts on the whole thing). The theme of the meeting was “Caring for Creation” and although I generally went to other talks with topics that interested me more, I did get the chance to listen to a talk by Douglas Moo, “Biblical Theology and Creation Care” followed by a panel discussion on caring for creation. The talk by Moo was one of the best papers I attended, and the panel discussion afterwards was both informative and contentious. Readers, I hope you’ll look through the whole thing and engage in some dialogue here. This is an extremely interesting topic and I’d love to read your thoughts on it. I’ll start here by summarizing the highlights of Moo’s paper. Then I’ll look at the panel discussion.

Douglas Moo- “Biblical Theology and Creation Care”

The thrust of Moo’s argument was twofold: first, to outline a “Biblical Theology” and apply that to the notion of stewardship; second, to hint at a strategy going forward for evangelicals interacting with creation care.

There are three ways to look at the texts in regards to creation care: resistance (a pattern which allows one specific interpretation or approach to trump all others and therefore forces all texts into a certain paradigm); recovery (look at different texts and incorporate a broad view that supports an ecological interpretation); and revisionism (adopt a constructive and creative approach that makes meaning from the text while recognizing broad continuity with the text). Moo noted difficulties with all three of these and endorsed a kind of recovery/revisionist approach which “sees the ‘Green'” in the texts while also not forcing texts to be about environmentalism in every case. Furthermore, a sparseness of texts does not necessarily entail that no theology can be drawn from a topic. Instead, there are enough verses which can address creation care to paint in broad strokes.

From this approach, Moo argued that there is a pattern of fulfillment in the New Testament which does not abrogate the Old Testament teachings on creation care but rather incorporates them into the whole world. We are called, Moo argued, to see our authority over the earth as not our own but as Christ’s as Creator.
Moo argued that we must not ignore God’s broad interpretation of “neighbor.” God’s view of neighbor includes not just your friends and your enemies but also those yet unborn. Our culture can be a positive influence in some ways by informing how we can prioritize our work in caring for creation. Furthermore, the concerns of our surrounding culture can inform the directions theology must take. For example, he noted that it was no accident that theologians turned to investigating texts in light of personhood debates in the 1970s with the abortion movement: culture can inform the direction that theology needs to explore, thus giving a more robust theology for coming generations. “When faced with challenges or large scale movements, the church rightly turns to the Bible to see what it may say on that issue.”

Moo then turned to the created world. We are able to learn truths about the world through scientific research. Moo argued that “truth discovered by scientists in the natural world” can inform our worldview because they are viewing the  evidence left behind from Creation. It is not scientific theory vs. scientific fact or science vs. the Bible. Instead, Christians must see truth as both interpretations of the science as well as interpretations of the Bible. “We cannot dictate Scripture by science but… current scientific data should not be dismissed unless there is an extremely solid Biblical ground that contradicts this data.” Yes, science changes, but so do interpretations. Sometimes science can inform us of a faulty interpretation of the text. It can cause us to turn to the text to look for a better understanding of both special and natural revelation.

Moo argued that there is a broad scientific consensus regarding climate change. It is happening and it is at least partially caused by humans. Not all scientists are saying the exact same thing in regards to climate change, but the broad consensus is that it is at least partially anthropogenic.–caused by humans.

Thus, Moo argued, “Biblical theologians have no basis as laity in science to reject what science is telling us on this topic [global warming].” The Bible informs us of the disastrous effects humans can have on the earth, from the fall to Israel’s continued rebellions, which brought harm to the earth itself. Similarly, our own modern rebellions can lead to horrifying effects on the earth.

Moo concluded with a call to Christian philosophers and theologians–and more generally, to Christians at large. “We should be at the forefront of confronting” climate change. We must be concerned with caring for creation.

Panel Discussion

The panel discussion after Moo’s talk quickly became contentious. E. Calvin Beisner began by arguing that we must not lose the distinction between scientific models and reality. He noted that a scientific consensus does not necessarily mean reality, and that dissenting scientists were often those whose careers couldn’t be threatened by loss of livelihood. He generally expressed skepticism over the extent of humanity’s causing climate change.

After Beisner’s general response, the moderator began a Q+A session in which all the panelists- Moo, Beisner, Russell Moore, and Richard Bauckham would be allowed to respond to each question. The first question asked about the political nature of the discussion. All the panelists generally agreed that the discussion goes beyond politics and into interdisciplinary studies of geology, climatology, philosophy, theology, and beyond.

Next, “What can churches do to enhance creation care?” Moo argued that it needs to become an agenda item that churches regularly touch upon. He also said there are a number of easy ways to reduce one’s climate impact that can be incorporated in one’s daily routines. Bauckham expressed a desire for every church to have a ‘care of creation’ group which would inform their church on issues involved in creation care. Beisner also advocated easy things that can be incorporated into one’s life to take care of creation. Moore was concerned with a tangible connection to creation–he advocated getting people out into nature for walks and camping and a fuller understanding of God’s creation.

The next question related to the facts that each would say are agreed upon by all panelists despite their some contradictory opinions. It seemed that across the board they agreed that some climate change is happening. Moo noted that it is easy to find someone to disagree with any fact, but that doesn’t undermine truth.

Another question that came up was where the panelists thought creation care should rank in regards to a priority for Christians. The general view expressed across the board was that there is no easy way to say this should be a number one concern or where it fell in line with other major concerns like abortion, evangelism, and the like. Instead, all the scholars seemed to say that it is people’s duty to be informed on this topic and to do what they can.

Interestingly, the question: “What are areas of agreement with the other panelists?” was the one that generated the most controversy. It started off well enough with the panelists noting actual areas of agreement. However, once the moderator (whose name I didn’t catch) noted the problem of the West’s excessive consumption, the discussion became heated. Beisner followed this comment with a rather lengthy argument that we need to move past the current scenario of reducing CO2 as a brute cure to the problem. He argued that this could be disastrous to the developing world. The developing world often is still using wood for fuel and to try to prevent them from using coal and other carbon-dioxide producing fuels would not only slow their development but also possibly cause deaths now due to inadequate heating, poor quality water, and the like. He made note of a few studies to this effect and argued that we can’t reduce climate change at the cost of humans who are here now struggling to get enough food and water to survive. He noted one study which showed that the more money spent on reducing climate change, the less the per capita income in the developing world becomes. Thus, he expressed concern for the people on earth now who might suffer from these measures.

Moo then noted truth in what Beisner was saying–we need to be aware of the harm we can cause and see if certain methods of prevention have a cost too high–but dissented from Beisner in arguing that we must also take into account sustainability and future generations, even if that may not make for the ideal “now” for everyone.

Bauckham really turned up the heat when he started his response by saying “Remember Galileo.” He noted that Galileo was initally condemned due to Scripture, but his example shows how trying to “predict from Scripture what science must observe is extremely dangerous.” He said that we need to stop playing “silly games with pseudoscience” [clearly aimed at Beisner’s use of arguments against the consensus Moo and the others argued was in place] and step outside of the Amero-centric view of the world. Regarding the developing world, he responded to Beisner by saying that whole nations are afraid of being consumed by the oceans, which is of course of utmost concern. He expressed worry that Christians in other countries saw Christians in the U.S. as disregarding the ecological crises of our time. Finally, he made a jab at Beisner saying that denying anthropogenic climate change is to the scientific community like denying the existence of Jesus would be to the panel.

Beisner immediately responded, saying that Bauckham had been disingenuous and that he felt the language used was troubling. He argued that the supposed consensus is not a true consensus and that there is debate among experts related to the extent of anthropogenic climate change.

Moore closed this part of the discussion by noting that it is easy to attack each other but that there is a general agreement: things need to change. He advocated change on a local level, with everyone trying to carry a bit of the load for a “full reform of culture.”

Conclusion

There were a number of themes I took away from this discussion. First, I think Moo is spot on when he notes that Biblical theologians have no right to tell scientists what their data is. Moo’s presentation has reverberations for other issues, such as the age of the earth. Not only that, but his general notion of culture driving theology and vice versa was a very interesting concept of which people should take note. Finally, his call to Christians to be at the forefront of confronting climate change and being good stewards of Creation must be taken to heart.

Despite the generally contentious nature of the panel discussion, it remains the case that all the panelists advocated a need to care for creation. The debate was over how that must take place. Clearly, the notion of anthropogenic global warming was a hot topic, but again all the panelists agreed that we need to be doing better than we are now.

What do you think of all these discussions? What can we do? What should we do? Let’s hear it!

Image

The third image is credited to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forest_in_Yakushima_30.jpg.

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

About these ads

About J.W. Wartick

J.W. Wartick has an MA in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. His interests include theology, philosophy of religion--particularly the existence of God--astronomy, biology, archaeology, and sci-fi and fantasy novels.

Discussion

22 thoughts on “Caring for Creation: A discussion among evangelicals

  1. Sounds interesting! I can kind of sympathize with both sides (Beisner and Bauckham), to be honest. I think a person’s conclusions about the proper response to global warming will invariably be determined by their evaluation of the scientific consensus (or lack thereof).

    I *did* have some red flags go up when I read Woo’s point: “…we must also take into account sustainability and future generations, even if that may not make for the ideal “now” for everyone.” I think part of the reason is that I recently had a bioethics lecture that touched on this kind of reasoning (the idea that we can sacrifice the well-being of some people *now* in order to ensure the well-being of future generations). It’s the same argument that was used to justify the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and other unethical medical trials.

    Posted by Matt | December 3, 2012, 7:45 PM
    • Thanks for the comment, Matt!

      Regarding Moo: I think that’s actually more my rewording of what he said than the actual point he was trying to make. Perhaps I need to rephrase it. I think what Moo meant was that we must be more sustainable with what we’re doing, even if that means that we have to give up the best possible world for everyone now. But that seems similar enough to what I wrote to be accurate.

      Regarding Beisner/Bauckham- I did think Bauckham went a bit out-of-bounds in his comments. Beisner mentioned that he reads at least one book on the subject every couple weeks and at least 5 articles a day (week, maybe? I think he said day), along with at least one peer-reviewed study a week. I think it would be fair for him to say that he had a reasonable conclusion that the evidence may not be as strong as others were saying.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | December 3, 2012, 7:53 PM
  2. At a minimum, we are called to be good stewards of God’s creation. As such we should not carelessly damage our world, but at the same time we need to be mindful of the well-being of those who currently inhabit the world. These often competing goals require careful thought to discern an appropriate balance.

    I often picture our natural resources as an inheritance — not something we earned or even deserve, but a gift. God gave us these resources to use wisely. Once spent, an inheritance is gone forever. We all know tales of immature people who receive an inheritance (or won the lottery), only to squander the money and end up a few years later even worse off than they were before.

    Our challenge with this inheritance of natural resources is to avoid such a fate. If we unwisely squander resources (like oil or coal) then we will never have these resources again. If we “spend” the resources for short-term gratification, we (and our children) may end up paying for our folly. Instead we should think carefully about how we can “invest” our inheritance, using it as a blessing that allows us to improve lives — now and into the future.

    Posted by Tim Folkerts | December 3, 2012, 7:54 PM
    • That’s a really awesome way of looking at natural resources! I hadn’t thought of it in that light before, but I think you’ve hit it dead-on.

      The balance between future and “now” is a very fine line, it seems. All the panelists agreed that we are called to be good stewards–their answers of what that meant all varied.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | December 3, 2012, 8:04 PM
      • It was the type of discussion that left me wondering: what next? How do we figure out what is the right path with things that take generations to see results?

        Posted by J.W. Wartick | December 3, 2012, 8:05 PM
      • I think continuing to invest in alternative energy sources and technology would be considered good stewardship, wouldn’t you?

        CNT technology, for example, looks especially promising. Imagine the possibilities in efficiency for a substance that conducts electricity about 1,000 times greater than copper! Or its thermal conductivity of 3500 W·m−1·K−1 (watts per meter kelvin ) vs copper at 385 W·m−1·K−1 (which is actually considered a very good thermal conductor).

        Very cool (and environmentally friendly) applications for the future.

        Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | December 4, 2012, 9:53 AM
      • Oh I agree. I think that those investments are great ideas. In fact, I think that all the panelists would have agreed. The contentious portions were not so much about whether we should invest in alternative energy or technology, but more over the extent of anthropogenic global warming: how much of it are we actually causing, how severe is it, and what do we do?

        I don’t think that anyone on the panel was suggesting we should not invest in alternatives. Of course, I can’t read their minds, but from what they were saying they all agreed we could make lifestyle changes and the like.

        Posted by J.W. Wartick | December 4, 2012, 5:44 PM
      • And pursuant to environmental discussion…you may find this interesting:

        A group made that claim that it is difficult to motivate people with regards to climate change because it is a relatively imperceptible problem; you can’t see CO2. What people DO see are major weather events, which may or may not be related to CO2 emissions, but they may never consider such a connection.

        This group created a video in which they demonstrate the emission of CO2 in NYC in one year:

        Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | December 4, 2012, 11:24 AM
      • Wow, really interesting video there. I did find it interesting. Thanks for sharing!

        It really puts into perspective what is easy to dismiss when we don’t “see” it.

        Posted by J.W. Wartick | December 4, 2012, 5:41 PM
      • The errors in this line of thinking do not occur in the evaluation that alternative energy sources are worth evaluating; they are in the bizarre assertion that unless the government dumps money by the billions into these things, nobody is evaluating them.

        The truth is that private money has been invested by existing industries for decades, in enormous amounts, with virtually no prompting by anybody. It has not been invested in wind or solar power (except where government billions have encouraged it,) because those show very little commercial promise. Instead, existing businesses have been investing in energy sources that show genuine, commercial promise. There already exist moderate-scale fuel cells that are available to municipalities to augment commercial power generators. Some of those are being refitted for home use, and may be available to consumers within the decade. Fuel cell cars did not need government prompting, they’re almost ready for market already, and they’re far more marketable and affordable than electric cars because they don’t take hours to refuel, and they don’t rely on battery technology that is not up to snuff. Clean coal technologies show promise, as do

        There is no commercial future for wind or solar on a large scale, because the wind and the sun are diffuse and intermittent. We’ve known about wind power since the 16th century, but wind did not create the industrial revolution because it’s an untrustworthy source of power. Solar power has been feasible since the 1970s, but cannot compete with other power sources because there’s only so much energy per hectare of land, and that makes it expensive. Primarily, wind and solar are the means by which rich investors can milk the government while producing nothing of value. The current administration has used it primarily for graft, to reward its political donors by transferring money in the guise of energy investment. Money spent on these is not good stewardship, it is money wasted.

        And let’s not even mention that absurd move to BURN OUR FOOD for energy. In addition to ruining engines and reducing engine efficiency, our nonsensical ethanol policy has prompted starvation in the third world by driving the price of grain out of the reach of poor nations. That, also, is the opposite of wise stewardship.

        Posted by philwynk | December 29, 2012, 6:31 PM
  3. It sounds like it was a really interesting event. I would definitely agree with Moo on most points. Creation care=loving neighbor. Also I think Beisner, while not wrong in his critique of curtailing emissions in developing countries is not looking at the bigger picture. Namely, that the potential loss of life, resources and land due to continued sea level rise and climate change would be devestating. Furthermore, on a personal note I tire of people like Beisner who are still dragging their feet on climate change. I expect it from Oil execs and the like but for Christians to continue to deny such a blatant sin is to me disgusting and while I don’t agree with Bauckham’s remarks I certainly empathize with his frustration.

    Thanks for the post!

    Posted by CJ | December 29, 2012, 4:13 PM
  4. Hi, as a fellow scientist and brother (though not a climatologist) I think the problem is that many climatologists have overstated their case. They tried to bolster their case and get people and governments moving by saying more than the data actually allowed them to say. We know that human-produced CO2 and other pollutants will have some effects on climate and probably already have some effects, but it is much more difficult to predict what those effects will be. And then, if observations do not show the predicted effects, we find people doubting that we can have any influence on the climate or that human-induced climate change actually exists.

    But in general, the call of Jesus not to try to serve Mammon and God would already have taken care of a lot of our problems if we believed Him. Our Western lifestyles demonstrate to what extend we no longer follow Jesus.

    On a side-note, while Christians are frequently blamed for devastating the environment, I wrote a response to J.W. Loftus here: http://www.chavoux.com/GodAnimals.html

    Posted by Chavoux | August 27, 2014, 3:45 PM

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: My Trip to the Evangelical Philosophical/Theological Society Conference 2012 « J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - December 3, 2012

  2. Pingback: All will be made New: Mayans, end times, and eschatology, oh my! « J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - December 20, 2012

  3. Pingback: Gregg Davidson vs. Andrew Snelling on the Age of the Earth « J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - January 8, 2013

  4. Pingback: Genetics and Bioethics: Enhancement or Therapy? | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - February 25, 2013

  5. Pingback: Questions of the Week: March 10-16, 2013 | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - March 16, 2013

  6. Pingback: “How Much Evidence to Justify Religious Conversion?” – John Warwick Montgomery on Conversion | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - April 15, 2013

  7. Pingback: Really Recommended Posts 4/19/13 | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - April 19, 2013

  8. Pingback: Genetics and Bioethics: Enhancement or Therapy? | Well Spent Journey - June 12, 2013

  9. Pingback: Book Review: “For the Beauty of the Earth” by Steven Bouma-Prediger | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - September 9, 2013

  10. Pingback: Humanity on the Brink in Ben Bova’s “New Earth” | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - November 26, 2014

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,537 other followers

Archives

Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,537 other followers

%d bloggers like this: