George MacDonald, the 19th century writer who C. S. Lewis called his mentor, wrote a great deal about possessions. One of his thoughts that has stuck with me is this one from his wonderful novel What’s Mine’s Mine (edited and purged of some of the heavy Scottish brogue by Michael Phillips and retitled The Highlander’s Last Song): “The true possession of anything is to see and feel in it what God made it for, and the uplifting of the soul by that knowledge is the joy of true having.”

Folks in Western cultures probably consider land they have purchased, settled on, and worked as among their most important possessions. Capitalism, of course, considers private property ownership as its cornerstone. But do we really own land, or are we truly just landholders? Consider this Old Testament Scripture:

KEY SCRIPTURE:
The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land (Lev. 25:23-24).

As legally encumbered as land is now in the West (for instance, my German ancestors’ farm land “bought” from a priory in 1269) it would be next to impossible for us to return to the biblical ideal implied by Levitical law and God’s prior claim. However, I do think we would be far better stewards of “our land” if we followed these considerations:

1. Being created in God’s image, I have a wonderful capacity to utilize the land for great benefit—for God’s glory, for my needs and those of my family, and for my neighbor in need. Yet I do not truly own the land; it belongs to God, and I am merely the land holder or steward of His property.

2. If I deliberately diminish or destroy the land’s capacity to fulfill God’s purposes as I have come to know them, there is a good possibility I am acting sinfully. One of those purposes is for the land and all that is on it to offer up praise to God. This is done by allowing the land to carry out its own work in maintaining the natural order—the God-created order that guarantees life and health to all the earth’s living creatures.

3. I must recognize that the land is a vital part of a vast and complex ecosystem that keeps all land healthy and productive. If I alter its function and nature without carefully considering its impact on the surrounding ecosystem, I am acting sinfully

4. God expects me to use the land to meet not only the needs of my own family, but also the needs of its other inhabitants and of those who will be its stewards after me when I am gone.

5. I have a responsibility to care for and respect the living things that occupy the land. If I act without considering their needs and purposes, I am acting sinfully. Remaining ignorant of the ecological characteristics and importance of my land to excuse irresponsible behavior is not Christian.

6. I must not knowingly use the land in a manner that deliberately diminishes my neighbor’s landholdings and/or his livelihood.

7. As much as I can control the factors, I have no right to deliberately pollute or degrade the air that passes over the land or the water that passes through or under it.

8. If the previous tenants abused the land, I should consider doing all I can to restore it to its highest purpose for the glory of God.

9. I recognize that no use of the land is 100 percent sustainable, but understanding my responsibility to consider future generations and to avoid wastefulness, I must seek to keep the level of matter and energy loss on the land at a minimum and seek to keep the soil as free of degrading chemicals and other elements as possible.

10. While the idea of the rigidly ritualistic Sabbath seems to apply specifically to Israel in Old Testament times, there is a “Sabbath Principle” that goes back to the Genesis mandates regarding the need to cease work every seventh day—for our personal benefit and the benefit of the land. Land must not be pressed beyond its capacity to remain fruitful.

11. I must never let the land become a god to me. It is not the land I worship, but its Creator. My relationship with the land is brief; my relationship with the Creator is eternal.

These points are taken from a longer article on the WOC site found here.

[Click on the Lancaster County farm photos to see them larger.]

I have not yet been able to put your environmental concern into my view of the End Times.”

So said a good friend. He comes from the same biblical interpretation background I come from. I appreciate his candor. I know what he means: Since the earth will “wear out like a garment” (Heb. 1:11); since some of it will “melt” (2 Pet. 3:12); since Jesus will return for us; since our future home will be heaven; since man is most important to God, why should we care about the state of the earth? [Image source]

Raffaello, The Creation of the Animals, 1518-19, Palazzo Ponteficio--Vaticano

Part of my answer has to be this: We have been looking at the wrong end of the Bible to understand our relationship to the creation. I believe we need to look at the beginning. While how creation happened is constantly debated in Christian circles, there is seldom an argument about two early mandates found in the first two chapters of Genesis about how we use and relate to the creation: the “dominion mandate” in 1:26-31 and the “marriage mandate” in 2:21-24. Sandwiched between those two, however, is a third: the “stewardship mandate” in 2:15. We seldom question the dominion mandate or the marriage mandate. But I don’t think we do well with the stewardship mandate.

KEY SCRIPTURE:
The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it (Gen. 2:15 NIV)

Here we are told that man and woman were put into the Garden to cultivate it and to take care of it. The full sense of those infinitives in the Hebrew language includes being a husbandman, or steward, of it—a task that means putting a hedge around it, protecting it, serving it, preserving it, and saving it. I feel that this command is often the forgotten mandate. If we had been heeding this divine requirement as enthusiastically as we do the dominion mandate, I think things would be significantly different—at least in the Christian community today.

So why should we care about the state of the earth?

1) We should care because it is the obedient thing to do. Nowhere in Scripture do I see that the original mandates have been rescinded. Although our dominion is often abused because of the Fall, the dominion mandate remains our ideal. Although our marriages suffer because of sin, the marriage mandate remains our ideal. Although the task of stewardship is difficult in the presence of evil, the curse, and materialism, the creation care mandate remains our ideal. We indeed glorify God in our obedience to all three mandates.

2) We should care because it is the loving thing to do. In Psalm 145 we have this revealing verse: “The Lord is righteous in all His ways and loving toward all He has made” (Psa. 145:17). That verse follows right after the one that says God opens His hand and satisfies “the desires of every living thing.” At the very least we can understand from these verses that if God is righteous and loving toward all He has made, we can attempt to be the same. As Francis Schaeffer reminded us, “If we love the Lover, we will love what the Lover has made.” Further, when we care properly for the earth, we also demonstrate love for our neighbor and for ourselves—so that all aspects of the “greatest commandment” can be carried out. [Images of Jean-Francois Millet paintings]

Certainly there are many unanswered questions about the future state of the earth, the material final state of the believer, and the nature of heaven as it comes to earth. Nonetheless, it’s clear to me that Jesus’ promise of future bliss must never be an excuse for present carelessness regarding His creation. If the atoning sacrifice of the second Adam is going to result in the reconciliation of all things ruined by the sin of the first Adam (Col. 1:15-20); if all of creation is on tiptoe groaning for the day when it will be released from its bondage to decay (Rom. 8:20-22 Phillips); if Isaiah’s Messianic peaceable kingdom on earth is yet to come, how can I be less than a loving and careful steward of God’s creation handiwork? [Image source]

So since we are no doubt closer in time to the restoration of all things than we are to the time of the curse (Acts 3:19-21), our outlook should be that of Isaac Watts, who wrote of the coming return of Earth’s true King,

Joy to the world! The Lord is come;
Let earth receive her King;
Let every heart prepare Him room,
And heaven and nature sing. . . .
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found.

One of the reasons that C. S. Lewis continues to be a best-selling author long after his death is that much of what he wrote gains even more significance as the decades advance.  My primary hardback copy of Mere Christianity, for instance, has been referenced so often some of its pages maintain their integrity only with the help of Scotch tape.  Recently I was again looking up what Lewis said about the importance of human freedom and the fact that sinful man often uses his freedom for selfish personal gain, and hence causes real harm to be done to others and to the earth.  Here is what Lewis said about such freedom” (from chapter 3, “The Shocking Alternative”):

Of course God knew what would happen if [his "higher creatures"] used their freedom the wrong way: apparently he thought it worth the risk. . . .  If God thinks that this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will—that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of really great importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings—then we may take it it’s worth paying. [Emphasis mine]

This is important in reference to the commonly heard statement on talk radio that the earth is too big and complex for people to cause significant environmental damage to it or threaten its God-designed ecosystems.  To be blunt, that’s a foolish statement.  The reality is that God made people to be stewards of His creation.  To do that, we have been given powers and mental capacities that are virtually godlike—the point the psalmist David makes: “[The Lord] made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor” (Psa. 8:5).

National Geographic photo

If we have the creativity and power to make bombs sufficient enough to blow the living world to bits in mere hours, we need to acknowledge that through our oft ill-considered technology and extensive abuse of the material world over the centuries we also have the power to do extreme harm to the functions of God’s good earth. [The irony of the Chernobyl disaster is that while the fallout "dead zone" around it may be permanently lost to human habitation, wildlife is returning and coping well with high doses of radiation.  Our technological carelessness has created an unintentional sanctuary for them.]

Some time back I made reference to the book by John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, in which he states his belief that Genesis 1 is really not about the creation of the material world, but about God’s taking the material world (which was already made) and making it to function.

Fittingly, the last function mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis is the human function—because mankind, the only creature made in God’s image, is the apex of His creation with the privilege and power to “rule” and “subdue” (1:26-31). Secular environmentalists and humanists don’t like to hear that—since they claim that such man-centeredness (anthropomorphism) is what has endangered the planet.  Yet the biblical fact remains.  Walton comments on humankind’s functions (pp 68-69):

All of the rest of creation functions in relationship to humankind, and humankind serves the rest of creation as God’s vice regent.  Among the many things that the image of God may signify and imply, one of them, and probably the main one, is that people are delegated a godlike role (function) in the world where He places them. It has already been mentioned that whereas in the rest of the ancient world creation was set up to serve the gods, a theocentric view, in Genesis, creation is not setup for the benefit of God but for the benefit of humanity—an anthropocentric view.  Thus we can say that humanity is the climax of the creation account.

Another contrast between Genesis and the rest of the ancient Near East is that in the ancient Near East people are created to serve the gods by supplying their needs.  That is, the role of people is to bring all of creation to deity—the focus is from inside creation out to the gods.  In Genesis people represent God to the rest of the creation.

We need to think long and hard about the fact that we “represent God to the rest of the creation.”  By our careless, hasty, and self-centered consumption of the fruit of the creation, we have now come to the point of destroying the fruitfulness of the creation—the “real harm” that Lewis says mankind is free enough to cause.  We, followers of Jesus included, have not been doing a very good job in our responsibility to represent God to the rest of creation.  Hence the creation suffers and “waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed” (Romans 8:19).

I used to think that all of this would happen only at the return of Christ.  But if we are children of God now, there is no reason that we cannot begin to act like children of God now in our relationship to the creation.  That’s why Francis Schaeffer believed that we need to be engaged now in helping to bring about a “substantial healing” of all the rifts created by the Fall—which, of course, will not be complete until Jesus comes.  Even if one does not accept Schaeffer’s belief, we do understand from Scripture that if we know what is right to do and don’t do it, we are acting sinfully.  Caring for creation, to the glory of our Creator, is and always has been one of our key functions.

KEY SCRIPTURE:
What we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later. For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. And we believers also groan, even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from sin and suffering. We, too, wait with eager hope for the day when God will give us our full rights as his adopted children, including the new bodies he has promised us. We were given this hope when we were saved (Romans 8:18-24 NLT).

I love just about anything scientific: ornithology, zoology, botany, meteorology, astronomy.  When I go outside, I hardly know what to look at: the birds, the clouds, the animals, the trees, or the night sky! Many Christians, however, have a bad attitude about science.  They think that because so many outspoken scientists are atheists, science must somehow lead to disbelief in God.  Not so.  In fact, the Apostle Paul points out that the natural world (the domain of scientific research) is itself evidence for the existence of God (Rom 1:21).

I’ve found that three R’s help me keep my biblical focus about the natural world: regard, respect, relationship.

Regard: The Bible tells us that God attends the death of a sparrow. Think of that! If the great Originator of the sparrow also attends its death, how can we care less? Most of the species extinctions mankind has witnessed are the result of our failure to give attention to what God gives His attention to.  Learning to love what the Creator loves can only increase the intensity of our spiritual experiences.  Think of all the biblical stories where people met God in the wilderness.  Could it be that we often miss the voice of God because we are regarding only human entertainments and artifacts?

Respect: George MacDonald, 19th century Christian author whose writing inspired C. S. Lewis, had a reverent respect for the natural world.  He wrote, “The flowers are joyous, inarticulate children, come with vague messages from the Father of all.  If I confess that what they say to me sometimes makes me weep, how can I call my feeling for them anything but love?” The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made (Psalm 145:9).

Relationship: Evangelical theologian John Stott was an avid birder who motivated the founder of A Rocha, a Christian conservation agency.  He wrote, “Christian people should surely have been in the vanguard of the movement for environmental responsibility, because of our doctrines of creation and stewardship.  Did God make the world? Does He sustain it? Has He committed its resources to our care? His personal concern for His own creation should be sufficient to inspire us to be equally concerned.”

Our relationship to the natural world is that of steward—the one who is responsible to care for what God has made. Homo sapiens is the only responsible species. How responsible have we been?

The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time (Genesis 6:5).

When the Son of Man returns, it will be like it was in Noah’s day (Luke 17:26).

Jacques Ellul

Below are a few more of my thoughts on the interface of God, man, and nature from my Musings journal started twenty years ago.  Here I wrestle with some of the issues that come to mind on the matter of technology.  These thoughts, of course, don’t hold a candle to the writings of Christian sociologist Jacques Ellul.

If you desire to dig deeper into the issues of technology as they relate to the Christian walk, you can’t get much deeper than these two extremely significant works by Ellul: The Technological Society and The Technological Bluff.  A key statement by Ellul in The Technological Society: “Technique has taken over the whole of civilization. Death, procreation, birth, all must submit to technical efficiency and systematization” (p. 128).

Thoughts from my musings on technology:

Technology and Evil

Technology is not evil. It is nothing more than utilizing God’s gift of creativity to do our work. What makes it evil is how we go about it and what we use it for.

Technology has brought us both bane and blessing. Whether or not our use of technology will benefit us depends on our having the spiritual insight to know what is bane and what is blessing.

Technological progression in tandem with moral regression always results in evil and death. In our century we saw this in Nazism and communism. In the post-modern, post-Christian West we are beginning to see it also in capitalism.

Technological progress has very little to do with human progress.

Monument to Chernobyl heroes

Technology proposes a toast to modernity: “Here’s to a healthier, easier, longer, and busier meaningless life.”

Too often we use our technology to circumvent our problems, not solve them. Merely because technology enables us to do many things we were not able to do before does not mean we must do them. Technological power, the result of our creativity that comes from our being created in God’s image, must be accompanied by personal responsibility to our Creator. The great tragedy today is that our technological capacity is growing almost as rapidly as our moral standards and responsibility for self-limitation are declining. This is nothing less than a disaster in the making.

Yes, we may champion technology and human creativity, but at the same time we must take the personal responsibility that technology and creativity are directed toward the wise use of the earth—toward meeting our true needs and resolving our real problems. Years ago it was said, “Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.” Today it’s more like, “Build a better video game or develop a drug to enhance sexual performance and the world will beat a path to your door.” How much we spend our technological powers on meeting real needs and addressing real problems is the measure of our humanity

Free market advocates tell us that competition and capitalism will automatically lead to greater efficiency. How does the common industrial practice of planned obsolescence fit into that picture? Dedication to efficiency would demand that products last as long as they possibly can and would see that waste is minimal. Dedication to profit, however, sees that products last only as long as a consumer thinks is reasonable and disregards waste by seeing it as a byproduct of profit-making. I would have more regard for the laissez-faire, libertarian community if it questioned its assumptions more—and more critically.  [Be sure to go to Chris Jordan's amazing website and click on the "artwork" to see it morph into startling reality.]

Gas masks, Chernobyl school

Ideally technology is people using their God-given creativity to do God-mandated work using God-created resources. So if our science and technology are carried on without reference to God, how can it result in God-honoring results?

The trouble with the technological multipliers of power is that we know far too much about how and when to start using them and care too little about how and when to stop using them.

Ironically we can learn a valuable lesson from the gun lobby. It’s mantra is “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” (Of course, guns make killing easier!) The lesson comes from broadening the scope: “technology doesn’t do anything; people do.”

True progress is always vertical; never horizontal.  Hence technology has little to do with progress.

For most folks progress is the more or less automatic process of traveling farther along the road we’re already on. But real progress is the process of changing roads and directions as often as it’s necessary for us to become good and wise.

 [Chernobyl photos source]