Yeah, the title kind of irks me too, especially having been taught a Biblical worldview which more or less puts us in charge of the earth and all that is in it. You can infer quite a bit from this.
1) That culture is so very far from this mindset that we're seen in some circles as the bane of earth, not its caretaker. The greenists miss the part about earth being provision for man and leap right to how much better the earth would be without man. To a creationist, this is like saying how much better dinner would be if people weren't around to screw it up by eating it. It just doesn't make any sense.
2) On the other hand, the creationists get the part about earth being provision for man and leap to seeing that as his right to do whatever he pleases.
There is a definite miss here as far as the caretaker role. Which, I think, is interesting because it is perhaps the one bit of ideaology with which the two groups could find common ground. The greenist saying we need to be caretakers for earth and for the sacrosanct environment, the creationist because it is our Christian duty. Aside: why do we get the stewardship concept when it comes to money and tithe and miss it when it comes to the enviro? OK, I need to quit asking questions to which I know the answer - teaching the stewardship concept clearly serves self-interest while conservation has increasingly become the enemy of conservatives...did you get that? Is the irony there for all to see?
Another bit of hope, and this purely pie-in-the-sky philosophy, that perhaps in reaching a consensus in agreeing to our role as caretakers, both sides would eventually see the true nature of man. Inherently self-serving. "But Toom, they already hold to this!" I don't think so. Well, the left sees that to be the case, of course it is only the right that is self-serving. This of course is crap, and what they need to see, I think only the right can show, because it is not only that unchecked man will do the wrong thing, but even the educated, rehabilitated man will do the wrong thing. There's no monopoly on wrong, plenty to go around. The right needs to get out of the Gordon Gekko mindset that "Greed is good". While I am a fervent capitalist and meritist and believe powerfully in the motivation to earn congruent to what one does, this does not supercede a Christian responsibility to balance one's economics with one's compassion. Or to be more to the point, with common sense.
I remember in Econ 101, the definition of economics: "the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses." Note, without the word 'scarce', there'd be no need for economics. If there were enough resources on earth to satisfy every want and need, there'd be no supply and demand curve. Supply would always equal demand. I bring this up because even if you took all morality, responsibility out of the equation, the laws of economics related to scarcity, REQUIRE us to measure carefully what will be consumed and what will be preserved.
Anyway, without further rambling, here is a piece from yesterday's AJC that I found incredibly interesting. A guy named Alan Weisman has written a book talking about what if humans left earth. It is at once a critique on our abuses and a creative comment about nature's resiliency. For more, visit http://www.ajc.com/search/content/opinion/stories/2007/07/08/isworld0708.html
If humans suddenly vanished from the Earth, if we were somehow rapturized, atomized or otherwise vaporized, what would happen on our planet?
Well, for one, it would no longer be "our" planet. (Perhaps it isn't now?) And if we got out of the way and let nature take its course, what course would nature take? Sadly, perhaps tellingly, it would quickly begin to erase our works.
We would leave some indelible marks, of course. Some of our nuclear wastes may outlive the planet. And our plastics have no half-life. Even so, there's cause for hope, says science journalist and author Alan Weisman.
"How resilient life is!" Weisman exclaimed. "It's just extraordinary. When you go to a place that has suffered incredible environmental insults by our hands —- Chernobyl is an example —- how just given a chance, nature rushes in and starts experimenting again."
Weisman, 60, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Arizona and a longtime magazine writer, this week publishes "The World Without Us," an astonishing mass of reportage that envisions a world suddenly bereft of humans. The AJC interviewed Weisman last week by telephone about his book and some of his findings. Here is an edited transcript.
Q. This was an interesting way to study the environmental impacts of humans —- to pretend that we've all vanished. Why approach it this way?
A. I've written about the environment a great deal in my life. These are sobering things to write about, scary sometimes. And no matter how well you write it, it's kind of hard to get people to want to read it. I've been searching for a long time for a way that would be so different, original, seductive, that people would actually read it, and take it to heart.
... [And] I think there's some kind of genetic longing in all of us for the Garden of Eden. ... We all dream of what the world was like when it was fresh and new and God had just created it.Q. New York is our most recognizable place, and it would become less recognizable in a hurry. What happens there?
A. The subways were built under what was once a very hilly and reasonably rainy island —- and it still rains as much now as it did when there weren't any buildings there. There were all these streams, 40 of them at least, running around the surface. All of that stuff got shoved underground, or got shoved into sewer pipes. ... Anyhow, these subway guys have to keep pumps going all the time. There's nearly 800 pumps under Manhattan Island. And just from the natural groundwater underneath the city, they're pumping out 13 million gallons a day. When it rains, they go into high gear. When it really rains, things get crazy. They're running hoses up a subway staircase and down the street to some sewer that's still not overflowing.
Q. Is the average New Yorker aware of this?
A. No! Who is? ...
So, if the people are gone, you get the subways flooding after a couple of days. And then, all the steel columns —- I don't care where you are, any subway, you're standing there on the platform, and there are steel columns that are holding up the roof. Above that roof is some street. I use the example of Lexington Avenue. The steel columns will corrode. Within 20 years, the whole street will start to buckle and suddenly there'll be this river that sort of re-creates one of the rivers that were there when Henry Hudson discovered New York. And then, seagulls flying over will drop a herring, or drop a mollusk, or something like that, and in just a few years, there will be life in these revealed rivers.
While all of this has been happening, no one has been mowing the lawns in Central Park, leaves have been blowing out of the parks, and leaf litter will be clogging the sewers. Along the curb, you'll have humus —- you know, soil mixture. Seeds will start to germinate. You'll start getting trees and flowers in the streets. ...
4 comments:
Good post, Toom......so why is that there seems to be no middle ground in this country....the system we are in seems to make people think that if you agree at all with the "other" side (be it left or right)you are somehow becoming like the other side....which threatens peoples security in who they are.....i.e. I'm Conservative or Liberal.....this goes back to what you were saying about the different groups missing things.
And, just my opinion here....but think back to stories you and I and others heard growing up about tithe.....they were the "So and so tithed every week....and then God blessed him with wealth".....Now, not to say those stories weren't true...but, that person was probably not only tithing but doing and operating within God's will in many other areas of his life....however...what happens in the minds of shallow faith people when they hear this...."quick, put some money in the tray...we're gonna be rich."....and so I'm not so sure many get it with tithe either....they just think they have more to gain.
I agree with much of what you have said here....my issue is this...I have grown very tired of the "choose a side" mentality....not that I don't do it...because I do...but I'm tired of it...I want to and should see issues through the lens of Christ....now in doing so my view could land on one side or the other...my guess is that it would not always be the same side every time and that sometimes it would be neither of the sides that our country divides itself with...politically speaking.
So if you figure out how to do that....to quote the American Dream Dusty Rhodes...."Mail it in...cause you a better man than me jack."
CTS: so why is that there seems to be no middle ground ...
TH: One theory I'll try to develop here is that society has become inherently USA Today-ish. Our commercial system, our personal lives, our occupations, our macro-economy has become so complex and so specialized, we want our news and our politcs, even our past-times to be condensed. Truly a sound-byte culture, in which we want the information but we want it in straightforward, easy to understand, conclusive, bits. Who's got time to unwind it after all? The savvy politician or PR rep knows this, which is why a key phrase, even if taken completely out of context, can ruin your career. Likewise, a key phrase, no matter how incorrect, can win over the lowest common denominator. The LCD is ... nothing less than the general public.
Example: you run a political ad saying your opponent was on a Las Vegas junket during last year's fiscal crisis, the truth is, he was spending his own money attending a wedding or whatever. How many people are going to read the follow up? The quick judgment, out of necessity because there's little time to worry about it, leads us to black and white conclusions and further polarization, while the complex world DEMANDS that we come up with something more balanced. It doesn't happen though and the cycle is perpetuated.
Bottom line: it is so much easier to make a call and then paint each decision thereafter with the same broad brush. Try to unwind something, fix a misconception ie, requires first that you get someone's time and attention and that is rare. Of course, it is almost as easy to simply point out problems on both sides without offering a solution - which is only slightly more productive.
As far as the tithe goes, John MacArthur got my attention with a statement that the tithe is no more - he goes into the theocracy of Israel and how the tithe plus a tax went to support the centralized religion and government and coupled with the NT urging to give with a cheerful heart, he concludes it is not a mandate at all. However, I've landed somewhere in the middle, that maybe it isn't a mandate and yet who loves God and wouldn't choose to give? God will bless those he wishes to bless and withhold blessings from others and it all has a purpose ... I just think the very blessings being discussed need to be viewed without financial attachments to them as there's just not a strong Biblical connection there. Shoot, the variance of what constitues wealth here vs. just about any other place is so vast, I don't see any way someone in America can say they aren't comparatively wealthy which leads me to believe there's little moral connection.
So sadly, the illustration you give is usually a ploy to fund the work of the church - not saying the motivation is always impure but I think the tactic is silly at best, nefarious at worst.
I hear you....I look at NPCC....vs...RBC.....growing up we recited the "Tither's Creed" each week for crying out loud...and I recall hearing much more about tithing there than I did during my time at NPCC....now, I don't know if that really says anything about the staff or philosophy of the churches or if it really has more to do with the depth of faith of the two congregations......but it sure seems to me that less (talk about giving) amounted to more (actual giving) in this case.
I think you are right on with the real reason we should give....and that is that we are blessed, period.
Also, what you said about our society goes back to things we have talked about before....truth as relative....Keller has had some great stuff that has to do with that.....but you are right again....If you can't tell me in a text message....then I'm too busy to be bothered...
Enough with these long posts... give me a sound bite.
Good discussion. Let's face it, people are willfully ignorant in our nation. The leftist tune into "mainstream" network news, CNN, PBS, and read the NY Times and Wash. Post. Those on the right (guilty) watch Foxnews, listen to talk radio, read Drudge, NY Post, and Wash. Times. We gather to ourselves those with similar viewpoints and exclude all others as slanted and biased. We choose every day to re-inforce our existing ideals, and we rarely entertain the notion that hey, I could be wrong.
I loved the article you referenced. It reminded me of a time when I was 10 or so and someone came in and cleared a football sized field of trees next to Rehoboth Presbyterian Church. We often played ball up there, but whatever the plans they had for clearing the field, it never became anything. Within a year or two it was covered over with trees and Kudzu, and today, no one could ever guess that it had been clear cut 20 years ago. Nature, by God's design, overcame the action of men.
While I concede that people create many environmental disasters I believe we limit many as well. Wildfires that consume thousands of acres while laughing at our attempts to douse them would consume millions of acres without us. We have used our God-given abilities to alter corn and grass and tomatoes to produce more per acre, drought resistant, bug resistant, and disease resistant crops.
Our impact on the environment is great, and I agree that our "side choosing" keeps us from doing what is best and reasonable for this world we are to be stewards of. I saw a recent documentary on DDT and how it was banned through shoddy science and sound-bites. One book by an activist, and the kids of the 60s ran with it. While there is some question as to whether it will kill birds, the end of the matter is that millions of people, mostly children, die each year due to malaria in Africa whose only defense today is mosquito netting. All because of sound bites and sides. The results are not theoretical any longer.
As for Washington and politics and sides. The job of your reps and mine is to be re-elected; to stay in power. The Joe Liebermans and Zell Millers, guys who will defy their party and stand for what they believe is right regardless, are few and far between. Most are going to go where the money and the power are on any issue. While I have some principaled and constitutional questions regarding term limits, perhaps that's the only thing that will get our reps to do the right thing and remove the need to be re-elected from the top of their to-do list.
Post a Comment