Why Pray for Israel? Part 2 – The “Israel of God”

Do you know which nation besides the United States is most frequently included in the geopolitical, economic, and religious headlines?”   [Ready with your answer?]  According to the Pew Research Center and Gallup Polls, next to the United States, the most frequently mentioned nations are Israel and China.  No surprise that China ranks so high; but Israel?  Not only is she ranked second or third between two world superpowers; the tiny nation of Israel has survived among neighbors and their proxies that have repeatedly called for her annihilation!  Might we suggest that the answers to this anomaly lie in the providential hand of God?

Why Should We Care About Israel?

In Part 1 of this series (See HERE.), we asked, “Why Pray for Israel?”   We concluded that one cannot account for either the prominence of Israel geopolitically or the long-term historic record of social and spiritual hostilities against the Jewish people without exploring the relationship of Israel to God’s sovereign plan of the salvation and restoration of His fallen creation.  We explained that to understand “Israel” in God’s plan, we must distinguish three meanings of this name.  “Israel” often refers to
(a) the “State of Israel,” but also can mean
(b) people of Jewish ethnicity worldwide; or,
(c) "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6: 16) which includes all people, both Jew and Gentile, whose faith identifies them as “spiritual seed of Abraham" (Romans 9: 6-7).  

Genesis 12: 1-3 records God's covenant with Abraham in which He promised three things: land, descendants, and blessings.  God repeated these promises to Abraham in Genesis 15:5-7 and 17:4-8; and later, to Abraham’s son Isaac by faith whom his wife Sarah had borne in her old age (Genesis 22: 16-18).  In turn, God gave Isaac’s son Jacob the assurance of God’s “Abrahamic covenant” (Genesis 28: 1-4).  But how does God’s promise of land, descendants, and blessings relate to His plan of salvation and restoration through the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Part 1 concludes with partial answers to this question from within the writings of the Apostle Paul in his epistles to the first century churches after the death and resurrection of Christ.  In Romans 1: 16-17, Paul quotes the Prophet Habakkuk in stating that THE RIGHTEOUS SHALL LIVE BY FAITH (Habakkuk 2:4).  The patriarch Abraham demonstrated this faith when he ...believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness (Galatians 3: 6).  Wonderfully, God’s salvation is a gift to those who surrender their “works of righteousness” and by faith receive salvation as His “love gift” through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, His Sin-Bearer (Romans 6: 23; Titus 3: 5-6).

But, if the way of salvation is through faith in Christ and His Gospel, what obligation do Christians (Christ-followers) have toward Israel?  Again, the Apostle Paul, answers this question as we noted in Part 1 (Click HERE.).  There, we used a series of questions with Scripture references that provide answers.  We will now revisit these questions; and then, continue with more questions relating to God's plan for "Israel."
Note:  Our aim is not to present the "final word" on questions of God's sovereign plan. We could not presume to do this anyway based on our theological expertise.  But hopefully, our chosen format will provide a scaffolding for meaningful thought and dialog.

What should be our attitude toward “Israel” and “Jews?” 

1) Does the Gospel apply to Israel?  - Romans 1: 16-17
Paul's calling as an apostle and his testimony following his conversion made him a passionate and bold preacher of the Gospel to all people --"to the Jew first and also the Gentile."
Application: The Gospel is for all people to hear and respond.

2) Do both Jews and Gentiles face judgment without Christ?
     - Romans 2: 4, 9-11
Both Jews and Gentiles are subjects of God's kindness which ought to lead to repentance (turning from our sin) and pursuit of God's righteousness.  Otherwise, neither Jew nor Gentile can be saved from eternal damnation.
Application:  This truth is reason for us to pray for all people (1 Timothy 2: 1).

3) What example does the Apostle Paul leave for us?
     - Romans 9: 1-5
Paul was so burdened for the salvation of his Jewish countrymen that he could wish that he himself would be ...accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh... (v. 2-3).   
Consider:  Paul's example is reason for us to pray for Israel and the Jewish people.  But, we will need to distinguish what is meant by "Israel" to inform our prayers.  Read on, please.

What should be our attitude toward God's sovereign plan?

4) Does God have the right to define "righteousness?"

...the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” - Romans 1: 16-17 (quoted by Paul from Habakkuk 2: 4)
And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. - Hebrews 11: 6
Consider:  Although God is patient toward mankind, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance (2 Peter 3: 9), yet by God's standard of justice, it is ...not because of any works of righteousness that we have done, but because of His own compassion and mercy He saves us...(Titus 3: 5).  God alone defines righteousness.

5) Does God have the right to dispense mercy?
The Scriptures say, "Yes, He does."  ...as it is written, there is none righteous, not even one...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3: 10, 23).  So then, God has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens* whom He desires (Romans 9: 18; and see v. 19-21).
Consider:  God's exercise of His choice to whom He will extend mercy and grace is illustrated throughout the descendants of Abraham, beginning with Abraham through Isaac, and made very clear in His choice of Jacob the second-born twin son of Isaac rather than the firstborn, Esau (see Romans 9: 10-16).  So then, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy (v. 16).  Praise God for His unmerited favor!  [We will address "hardening" in Question 9.]

6) Does God have the right to call Gentiles as well as Jews?
The short answer is "Yes.!" As established in Question 4 above, God has the right to define both His righteousness and to dispense His mercy (Question 5) as He wills.  Romans 9: 22-24 extends this logic by stating that the same God who ...endured with much patience objects of His wrath prepared for destruction...did so to make known the riches of His glory upon objects of mercy which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not from among the Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.  The Apostle Paul continues describing God's sovereign plan by referencing Hosea 2: 23:  I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, "MY PEOPLE," AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, "BELOVED."

Consider:  We can see from these Scriptures the ramification of God's covenant with Abraham which we discussed in Part 1 and reviewed above.  God had promised to Abraham that ALL THE NATIONS SHALL BE BLESSED IN YOU (Genesis 12: 3).  Even though God had chosen Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob to make up His "chosen people" in the Old Testament (O.T.) era, it was also clear that God was extending His mercy and grace to Gentiles.  For example, God had extended mercy to the Canaanite prostitute, Rahab (Joshua 6: 25), and the Moabite widow, Ruth (Ruth 4: 13-17), who became the great-grandmother of King David.  And so, Paul could write in Galatians 3: 8:  And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand to Abraham.... The faith calling of the Gospel of Christ was already evident in the Abrahamic covenant which foreshadowed God's plan to call people of faith from "all nations," both Jew and Gentile.
Question:  Does the message of Scriptures like Hosea 2: 23 and Galatians 3: 8 (above) suggest that God has given up on His "chosen people?"  Please continue reading.

Did God abandon His covenant with Abraham?

7) Or has God been working instead through a “remnant?”
The Old Testament Scripture in Hosea 2: 23, quoted by the Apostle Paul (See (6)), suggests that God extends His sovereign mercy and salvation to people outside of the descendants of Abraham.  You may ask, what will happen to God's "chosen people?"  Paul answers this question in Romans 9: 27 by quoting from another O.T. prophet, Isaiah, who lived 700 years BC when Israel was being threatened by Assyria:
For though your people, O Israel,
may be like the sand of the sea,
Only a remnant within them will return;
A destruction is determined,
overflowing with righteousness (Isaiah 10: 22).
In Romans 11: 1-5, Paul elaborates on “the remnant.”  First, he asks if God has rejected His people (v. 1) and concludes that He has not (v. 1-2); but instead, quotes God’s response to the prophet Elijah who was fearful and discouraged when he thought he was the only faithful person left in Israel (1 Kings 19: 18):  God replied, No!  But instead, …I HAVE KEPT FOR MYSELF 7,000 MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL (Romans 11: 4).  Paul then connects this O.T. reference to a the first-century remnant of his own time (v. 5) writing as follows:  In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.
Consider: The notion of a “remnant” runs like a thread throughout the Old and New Testament Scriptures, pointing to God’s sovereignty and covenant love (Heb. hesed, or, “lovingkindness, mercy”).  In spite of the apostasy of both within Israel and among the Gentile nations, a remnant “remained steadfast in covenant loyalty. 

Through them, God’s purposes move forward…” (Bible Hub Commentary, click HERE).  Indeed, God’s remnant does not mean His plan of redemption is a small thing, as we shall now see.

8) What determines who becomes part of the remnant of Israel?
We have established that God’s covenant love and mercy does not include all of Abraham’s offspring, but only through the line of Isaac, Abraham’s son by faith (Genesis 22: 16-18), and through Isaac’s son, Jacob, renamed Israel.  Furthermore, as noted in Question 7 above, only a remnant of Israel will be saved (Romans 11: 5). The Apostle Paul explains why only a remnant of Israel were chosen. 

Summarizing his explanation in Romans 10: 1-5, Paul repeats his desire and prayer for his Jewish countrymen (v. 1) and commends their zeal for God (v.2).  But then, Paul laments that Israel by and large, …not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own (by depending on “keeping a law of righteousness” of their own (Romans 9: 30-31) they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God (Rom. 10: 3).

And what is the “righteousness of God?” Short answer:  Jesus Christ!  For Christ is the termination of the law for [human-based] righteousness to everyone who believes (v. 4).  The alternative is to place confidence in the flesh (Philippians 3: 4) as many in Israel did, seeking to please God by their own works but failing to reach the standard of the righteousness of God which is only attained by Jesus Christ.  Instead, Israel …did not pursue [righteousness] by faith, but… stumbled over the stumbling stone…Jesus Christ (Romans 9: 30-33).  For by grace you have been saved through faith, and [even] that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works that no one should boast (Ephesians 2: 8-9).
Consider: In addressing Question 7 above, we stated that the notion of the “remnant” runs like a thread throughout Scripture.  Hopefully, we now understand that the proper "boast" of all who are the elect is a humble response to God's calling in repentance and in recognition of our need for the gift of the righteousness of Christ.
Question:  Can you see how the contrast between "human-based right standing" (i.e. "works of righteousness") before God and submitting to God's call to His righteousness is evident throughout the Bible?  The contrast began with Adam and Eve hiding behind fig leaves in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3: 7-8); then, continued between Cain and Able (Genesis 4: 1-8; Hebrews 11: 4).  Abraham produced a son, Ishmael, by his own works before Isaac was born as a son of faith (Romans 9: 7-9).  The same pattern continues through the history of Israel from the period of Moses through Joshua and the judges, the kings, the prophets, and into the current age.
Application:  The responsibility to yield to God's calling through the Gospel is one that every person must either accept or reject.  But how does that work?

9) What determines submission of heart to God’s calling?
Earlier, we explained that God reserves His sovereign right to define righteousness (Question 4) and to dispense mercy as He wishes (Question 5).  These biblical claims are predicated upon the central truth that ...without Christ, [we are] excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world (Ephesians 2: 12), and we are ...dead in our trespasses and sins...(Ephesians 2: 1).  Our "default condition" as a descendant of Adam is death and separation from God.  But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)... (Ephesians 2: 4-5).

How is it that the same God, rich in mercy, also chooses to cause hardening of hearts?  Scripture supports God's sovereign right to extend to anyone, Jew or Gentile...mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires (Romans 9: 18).  Later, in Romans 11: 7, Paul applies "hardening" to Israel, writing, ...that which Israel is seeking for [based on human-based righteousness; see Question 8), it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened.

Consider:  Logically, we can conclude that God reserves the sovereign right to allow hardening.  This divinely permitted spiritual dullness is God's judicial response to persistent unbelief.  Paul uses the example of the Egyptian Pharaoh who became hardened as he resisted Moses's pleas to free God's people from slavery (Exodus 9: 16; Romans 9: 17).  But God hardened not only Gentiles like Pharaoh but many within Israel as we noted above. Both were ...A DISOBEDIENT AND OBSTINATE PEOPLE  (Romans 9: 17).
Application:  What lesson is here for us to apply to our spiritual lives?  See Hebrews 3: 13.

10)  If God dispenses mercy or hardening, how can He find fault?
The Apostle Paul anticipates this question (Romans 9:18-19) and does not answer it, but simply warns readers not to question the Creator (v. 20-26).  To us, there appears to be a mysterious interdependency between God's sovereign call and election of those who will be saved, on the one hand; and on the other hand, the responsibility of each individual to hear and respond to God's call in repentance and faith in God's salvation through Christ.  In Romans 10: 8, Paul takes away the excuse that God's call is too faint or distant to hear: But what does [righteousness of God] say?  "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH  [to confess] AND IN YOUR HEART [to believe]" -- that is, the word of faith which we are preaching...  Upon hearing the word of faith being preached in the power of God's Spirit, our individual responsibility is to ...confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord  ["supreme Authority, Master; and if we ...believe in your heart [core being; mind, will, affections] that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved... (v. 9).

Consider:   Only God knows how many out of all humanity have heard His call to repentance and faith; and still, they did not respond.  Can you remember times when you heard God speaking so near and inviting to your spiritual ears and tugging on your heart?  Then, hopefully you yielded to God's love in repentance and faith.  The Apostle Paul writes about the mysterious interdependency between God's choice of ...us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him (Ephesians 1: 4); and then, our responsibility to respond ...after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise...(Ephesians 1: 13).  
Application:  Although we do not fully understand how God's mercy and grace interacts with our stubborn wills, hopefully we can worship and praise Him for saving us and sealing us for eternity in the body of Christ which is His church, the community of faith in Christ composed of both Jew and Gentile.  To answer our overarching question above, God did not abandon His covenant with Abraham but expanded it through a "new covenant" inaugurated in the blood of Christ who is our Great High Priest through whom we have personal access to the throne of God (Hebrews 4: 16).

11) Who or what is "the Israel of God?"
The Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatian Christians who were being drawn away from the righteousness of Christ back into "law-based righteousness."  He exhorted them with these words:  But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.  For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God (Galatians 6: 14-16).  Our understanding is that the "Israel of God" is Jesus Christ, God's perfect Israel.  Because of His perfect life, sacrificial death, and resurrection, Jesus is everything that fallen Jacob (renamed Israel) and his Jewish descendants of the nation of Israel had failed to become.  God gave His exalted Son, Jesus Christ ...as head over all things to the church which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all (Ephesians 1: 22-23).  Christ, the "Israel of God, "fills all" of His creation with His glory, being Himself the fulfillment of God's redemptive plan through His covenant with Israel and the new covenant in the blood of the Lamb which establishes His church.
Consider this!  God gave His Son who has all authority (Matthew 28: 18) to serve as bridegroom and husbandman of His church (Ephesians 5: 25-27).  When the eyes of the body of Christ, the church, the Israel of God, are focused on Him, the old covenant promise of land fades in comparison to the promise of our  "citizenship in Heaven" (Philippians 3: 20).  The ethnic divisions of Jew, Greek, Roman, etc., gender, and social class also dissolve:  For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise (Galatians 3: 27-29).
Application:  What do the claims of these Scriptures mean to you?  Take time to meditate on them.  Don't let the apparent theological complexity distract you from exalting Christ ...who fills all in all with His glory.

How then, should Christians pray for Israel?

12) Why has Israel seemingly "missed the boat?"
Given the prominent role of Israel in God's redemptive plan throughout the Old Testament, doesn't it seem odd that His "chosen people" should be so scattered and apparently abandoned?  The Apostle Paul anticipated this notion when he asked, God has not rejected His people, has He (Romans 11: 1a)?  Recall that we discussed how God gave Israel over to spiritual dullness (hardening) as His judicial response to their persistent unbelief (Question 9).  Then, in Romans 11: 11a, Paul asks more specifically, ...they [Israel] did not stumble as to fall did they?  Paul answers his question, emphatically "No!"  Rather, he explains that because of unbelief,  Israel was hardened, what produced a dual effect--  ...salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them [Jews] jealous (v. 11b).  The duel benefits are first, that by giving the Jews a "spirit of stupor (v. 8)...until the fullness of the Gentiles come in; and thus, all Israel will be saved...(v. 25-26a); and second, by the salvation of Gentiles, the Jews are moved to jealousy (v. 14).  It followed that if Paul could capitalize on their jealousy, at least some Jews might be saved (v. 14).

Application:  Again, if we are honest, we are no strangers to spiritual dullness.  May we not take it lightly as Hebrews 13: 3 cautions.  But also, may we be prayerfully sensitive toward others regardless of ethnicity or religious persuasion when we encounter spiritual dullness in them, realizing the miracle of God's grace that awakened us from spiritual death (Ephesians 2: 1ff).  Read on as we address what might be a prideful attitude toward the Jewish people.

13) As a Gentile, am I prideful over the spiritually dull?
Redeemed Gentiles such as us who realize that God still graciously allows His chosen people to experience a spiritual dullness while He calls lovingly to others to be saved (such as we were), it is easy to become prideful.   The Apostle Paul anticipates this unbiblical attitude and counters it with a wonderful botanical analogy to humble the prideful.  Many horticultural varieties from apples to olives have been enhanced over the years by grafting the branches (scions) that bear more promising fruit onto common, or wild, rootstocks.  No one wanting to improve a variety would graft a wild olive rootstock onto a rich-yielding rootstock.  Yet, Paul applies this unlikely scenario when he writes to bring humility to Gentile hearers:  But if some of the branches were broken off [to make room for you], and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either (Romans 11: 17-21). 

As noted in Question 12, here we see the olive tree as the place of privilege of the Jews while the wild branches are the Gentiles grafted in (saved) by God's grace.  But God is not finished with unbelieving Israel and will be grafting them back into the olive tree as "natural branches" if they forsake their unbelief (Romans 11: 23) --another reason the Gentiles (like us as "wild branches") should not be prideful.

Consider:  According to Paul's analogy, the rich root of the olive tree is believed to represent the Abrahamic covenant in which God promised Abraham many descendants (Genesis 12: 1-3; Gen. 17: 1-2).  The blessings of this covenant (See introduction above) were extended through Abraham's son, Isaac, and to his son, Jacob (renamed Israel).  Significantly, God affirmed His covenant with Jacob (Israel) twice (Genesis 28: 3; 35: 11).  In the latter instance, God appeared to Jacob, changed his name to "Israel," and said, 'I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply. A nation—even a company (or "congregation, assembly") of nations—shall come from you, and kings shall descend from you.'"  Near his death, Israel repeated the covenant in the hearing of his sons (Genesis 48: 4).  

According to John B. Carpenter (Click HERE.), God was promising more than just that an ethnic (Jewish) line will come from Israel.  Much more, there will be a "company of nations" (Hebrew, k’hal goyim) which many interpret as the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word, ekklesia, meaning “church” or “assembly.”  In Carpenter's interpretation, "The Church did not replace Israel because Israel was always and already the Church, the promised “assembly of peoples." When the Apostle Paul speaks of the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16), he is not speaking of a replacement entity; he is describing the continuum of God's ancient gathering of believers from all kinds of peoples and nations.  [Note that early in Israel's history, this "continuum" had included Gentiles such as Rahab and Ruth (See Question 6).]  Believers in Christ are the “children of Abraham,” and the true Israel is the one olive tree into which believing Gentiles are grafted."
Application:  Far from a prideful attitude over those who are spiritually dull, let us give humble praise to God and to Jesus Christ who is the ...head of the body, the church (Colossians 1: 18).  How will this understanding affect your attitude and prayers for those of Jewish ethnicity, and toward the Gentiles?

14) How should we focus our prayers for Israel? 
We have interpreted the command of Psalm 122: 6 to "pray for the peace of Jerusalem,” to mean that we should pray for the whole nation of Israel.  We have found no Scriptural prohibition of praying for Israel whether it be praying for the State of Israel, or praying for all who have Jewish ethnicity, or for “spiritual Israel,” the "Israel of God" (Galatians 6: 16).  In fact, given the ongoing Middle East conflict surrounding the Nation of Israel and its leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, we ought to pray for that nation.  Also, given the current rise in Antisemitism, it is important that we pray for ethnic Jews and all who hate them.

As we have considered whether and how to pray for Israel or for any nation, there is an important biblical consideration.  Based on our reasoning in Questions 7-10, we can assert that ...they are not all Israel who are descendants of Israel (Romans 9: 7).  Many Jews within the State of Israel and worldwide are apostates just as there are multitudes of Gentiles in the United States and beyond who do not live by faith in God.  Still, a remnant remains steadfast in covenant dependence upon the righteousness of God through faith.  Through the true "Israel of God," Jesus Christ, God's sovereign purposes are unfolding daily on the path toward an eternal "peace of Jerusalem."  God's spiritual remnant, "spiritual Israel" looks forward to gathering in the New Jerusalem on ...Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven (Hebrews 12: 22-23).

Application: We understand that ...our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (Philippians 3: 20).  But, in the meantime, the Scriptures urge us to pray for ...all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity (1 Timothy 2: 1b-2).  When we obey these commands and pray for one another and for leaders like President Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, and their administrations, we understand that God has always worked through the hearts of a remnant of godly people.  Nations are only as godly as their leaders and citizens.  When we use the prayer format taught by Jesus, we pray, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven (Matthew 6: 10).  Our primary focus is not for the glory of any earthly nation or political leader.  Instead, we bow humbly before Jesus Christ, the true “Israel of God,” the One whom God has made …head over everything for the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all (Ephesians 1: 22-23).   It is in the Body of Christ, the church, that our hope for the Earth should rest because …Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever.  Amen!
Question:  How will you pray after having read and considered the 14 questions we have raised?  We trust that your faith is being strengthened because you are more able to evaluate the current geopolitical, economic, and spiritual forces at work through the lens of a correct biblical worldview.

Comments Welcome:  Hopefully, we have stirred some questions in your mind and we'd love to hear from you.  Just click the "Comment" link below and share your questions and insights on what we have offered in Part 2, or from Part 1 (Click HERE).  You can respond privately by writing to silviusj@gmail.com 

Climate Change in Context – 2. Rightly Weighing Our Risks

Most of us would think nothing of standing beneath a huge cliff overhang.  Some of us have even camped overnight in the “shelter” of an overhang.  However, we might be wary of standing or camping there if a huge fallen tree had precariously angled itself against the cliff edge.  Would you take that risk?

Our assessment of the level of danger might change when we factor in both the cliff and the fallen tree.  It’s a matter of perceived risk.  We judge that the biological processes decaying the tree will soften and dislodge the tree more rapidly than the geological processes of weathering will loosen the rocks.  Therefore, we conclude that we are at greater risk of being crushed beneath the decaying tree than being crushed by fallen rocks.

We make many of our choices based on the apparent level of risk, imminence of danger, and our personal threshold of fear.  I remember dressing in a protective honeybee hat and long sleeves with “bee smoker” ready to help my grandpa capture a bee swarm high up in a tree.  As I climbed the ladder, I immediately performed a risk assessment as to which would be the greater threat to my life—getting stung, or falling from the ladder while trying to avoid bee stings.  I decided to hold onto the ladder no matter what.

Divided Over Our Risk
Today, we are confronted by multiple threats to our lives.  Some seem remote; others may appear imminent.  For example, studies reveal that passengers of large-size cars are more likely to survive a crash than those riding in small cars.  However, those concerned about carbon footprint and the threat of climate change encourage us to drive smaller cars, even hybrid or electric cars.  Once again however, we must prioritize among the three risks to decide which is most urgent:  risk of dying in a car crash, risk of going broke from buying the more expensive car, or risk of a global climate crisis.

Speaking of the “global climate crisis,” Americans have been divided for several decades among “climate deniers,” “non-deniers,” and “disavowers” (i.e. those who accept the climate data but don’t take action).  Such a deeply divided culture needs an atmosphere of civility in which open dialog and sound reasoning can occur among climate scientists, ecologists, politicians, social scientists, and the general public.  We emphasized this point in a 2020 Oikonomia article, “Climate Change in Context – 1. Getting the ‘Atmosphere’ Right.”  

Now, in Part 2 of our series on climate change, we focus on “Rightly Weighing Our Risks.”  Our purpose is to assess the relative influence of three spheres of influence on popular opinion and behavior related to the “climate crisis;” namely, (a) science, (b) politics, and (c) religion.  We understand that any of these three can influence the others, but we will try to address them separately.

Can Science Persuade?
In 2017, our Oikonomia article entitled “Paris Accord: Wrong Climate for Creation Care” reviewed climate science data and various interpretations in considerable detail.  We raised important considerations related to the following:
(a) reliability of climate data,
(b) validity of scientific interpretations,
(c) predicted benefits of climate policies toward planetary and human health; and,
(c) influence on behavior of world leaders and their followers. 
Please click HERE to revisit our earlier analysis.

According to recent polling, voters are not convinced that climate change is the most urgent threat.  For example, polling by a progressive think tank, Data for Progress [Click HERE.], revealed that nearly half of Americans (48%) rank the faltering economy as their greatest concern compared to only 6% for climate change.  That the majority of Americans rank the economy and other issues at higher risk than climate change suggests that, in spite of dire predictions, they have adopted a utilitarian ethic.  Utilitarians pursue what they believe is the greatest good for themselves, and secondarily, the greatest good for the greatest number of other people.

Michael S. Northcott, Professor Emeritus of Ethics at the University of Edinburgh, concluded, “Scientific prophecies of environmental crisis do not have the motive power to change the direction of a form of civilization which has become accustomed to courting risk and hazard as a way of life (The Environment & Christian Ethics. Cambridge U. Press, 1996).”  As we noted earlier, we all assess risk of danger in our decision-making.  But sometimes we are tempted to ignore warnings and plunge ahead in spite of danger.  At other times we are distracted by “shiny objects” that distract us or distort our judgment from realizing a great and looming danger. 

The chart below highlights a few of the potentially disturbing changes in American culture.  Some have much larger and immediate implications than climate warming.  We recognize that these data are but a small subset of much more data on each subject.  However, based on these data which would you rank in the top five needing most immediate attention? [Click on chart to enlarge.]

Maybe we should be asking ourselves whether we’ve been too distracted by the “shiny objects” of climate change and the Green Revolution at the expense of other more imminent and dangerous trends.  On the other hand, maybe the distraction has kept us from marveling at the amazing near-constancy of many of the life-sustaining conditions of planet Earth (See blue portion of chart.).  Certainly, politics and the media have a persuasive influence on how we judge risks among the various threats we face.  We go there next.

Political Persuaders
Many politicians and policy makers emphasize the “imminent threat” of climate change.  To them, the climate threat justifies drastic reductions in fossil fuel usage. The resulting limits have hiked energy costs and triggered economic inflation.  Together, these changes cause additional emotional and spiritual challenges to the health of our culture.  Nevertheless, in efforts to convince climate-deniers and disavowers of the imminence of the “climate crisis,” some call for more aggressive re-education.

In the Journal of Environmental Thought and Education (Japan) [See HERE.], John P. Clark writes (emphasis added) “we need to work harder on creating good environmental education so that the public can engage in more effective environmental thinking.”  But Clark’s view of “good environmental education” calls for aggressive indoctrination.  He recommends “reorganizing our social world into networks of awakened and caring transformational communities that are dedicated to undertaking whatever actions are necessary to put an end to the Necrocene (“era of death”) and initiate a new era characterized by the flourishing of life on Earth.”

Clark’s approach to environmental education, and that of many others who support “Green Energy” policies, involves integrating ecological principles with the social and political sciences.  Education ought to include integration across disciplines.  But education can quickly become forced indoctrination when it includes, in Clark’s words, “undertaking whatever actions are necessary” to bring about their envisioned transformation.  Not to be alarmist, but history has shown that individuals and followers who vow to “undertake whatever actions are necessary” have given rise to much suffering, destruction, and death.  Already, we can see signs of trouble on the horizon.

For example, the agenda for 2030 of the World Economic Forum (WEF) [Click HERE] calls for a one-world government.  As we wrote in Oikonomia during the pandemic in 2020, “power-seeking individuals of the WEF believed the COVID lockdown provided the model for the next global lockdown—one justified by the threat of climate change!  [See “Climate Lockdowns Coming Soon,” click HERE.]  A 2020 statement by WEF proposes that the responses by “political institutions” to the COVID pandemic could serve as a “crucial dress-rehearsal for a transition to a different economic model…”  Already, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has urged the initiation of a climate lockdown as follows:

The climate crisis is one of the biggest emergencies that our country has ever faced, and our time is running out. Americans are counting on Biden to lead accordingly. Let’s act boldly, and treat this crisis like the emergency it is.  [Click HERE to read more.]

Senator Merkley’s proposal to avert the predicted “climate crisis” is typical of many bold revolutionary proposals offered by scientists and politicians today.  Again, we must call for objective and civil discussion to assess the certainty and imminence of the climate threat and the likelihood that a given policy will bring about the intended result.  Building civility and community consensus at the national and global level is a tall order.

Lack of “Community” among Authorities
Authorities in both the scientific and political “community” would certainly be more convincing if they could reach a consensus that we are indeed facing a “climate crisis.”  However, in spite of the “Paris Accord,” there remains much “discord” among world leaders [See HERE.].  Many do not all take the climate data equally seriously.  Nor are they all equally committed to making good on commitments to reduce fossil fuel usage and resultant carbon emissions in the spirit of the Paris Accord.

The website “Our World in Data” [Click HERE.] has an interactive collection of data charts on CO₂ emissions by region and by nation.  The data reveal that Communist China lacks a genuine commitment to lowering atmospheric carbon emissions.  Note that China’s annual carbon emissions are over twice that of the United States.  Furthermore, China’s carbon emissions continue to trend upward while the US and other western nations have achieved drastic reductions in emissions. 

In spite of this great disparity, the WEF and other authorities are pushing the notion of a global climate crisis.  Simultaneously, they are pressuring the US and western nations for drastic reductions in fossil fuel usage in favor of renewable energy, particularly wind and solar energy.  Efforts to restrict fossil fuel extraction in the US in order to force the switch from gasoline- and diesel-powered to electric-powered cars and trucks is well intended but experts believe, too fast for technology and the markets to adjust.  Already, restriction of synthetic fertilizer use by farmers disrupts agricultural production, resulting in food shortages and political unrest in nations like Sri Lanka and the Netherlands [Click HERE.]

Clearly, the so-called “global community” of nations is not behaving as a true community in addressing current ecological and economic concerns.  From a utilitarian ethical perspective, we can see that China’s “greater good” appears to be aimed at economic and political domination.  The governing Communist Party uses every weapon in its arsenal to achieve this goal with little apparent concern about the “climate crisis.”  Considering China’s effort to promote its prominence in the world through the Green Revolution, and before approving Sen. Merkley’s proposed “climate emergency” measures, we should remember the devastating effect of lockdowns during the COVID-19 (Wuhan Virus) pandemic on education, economy, education, exercise of faith, and overall well-being.

In view of China’s lack of cooperation in a “global community” approach to reduce carbon emissions, the recommendation of John P. Clark  to establish “awakened and caring transformational communities“ worldwide seems shallow and unrealistic.  Already, efforts like the Paris Accord and WEF are playing into the hands of Communist China, giving it the upper hand in its effort toward world domination, leaving the US in an increasingly weakened position.

Religious Faith Persuasion
Admittedly, the notion of a “global community” is not inherently wrong.  Each of our three spheres of influence-- science, politics, and religion attract people into community based on common goals, interests, or beliefs.  Like science and politics, our third system of influence, world religions, are systems of beliefs and practices believed to justify adherents in the eyes of some higher being or standard.

In recent years, many environmentally conscious people have integrated their love for nature into their preferred sacred, religious belief(s).  Many environmentally conscious people who have chosen to follow secular liberalism have rejected traditional the Judeo-Christian teachings of faith in God and the importance of marriage, family, and community.  Yet, as Sumantra Maitra writes,¹ their human instincts for faith — to believe, worship, submit, and fear — didn’t just go away but manifested in various other pre-civilized tribal ways.  For example, a liberal seminary encouraged its students to skip classes to pray and confess sins in front of potted plants.  In Switzerland, 250 people in full funereal garb mourned the apparent approaching death of a glacier.

Major religions include the monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), polytheistic (e.g. Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism), and atheistic and pantheistic (e.g. Buddhism).  Historically, the creation or natural world has served as an inspiration within many religions, each claiming they represent “the Way” to follow.  What follows is a sketch of how some have drawn upon Buddhism as a basis for right living and caring for the Earth.

Buddhism and Christianity
John P. Clark’s call for an “era of a liberated humanity and a liberated nature,” described earlier, is rooted in Buddhism [See HERE.].  As Clark elaborates, “In this endeavor, we can find inspiration in the ancient Buddhist concept of Appamāda. “Appamāda” is a Pali word (“Apramada” in Sanskrit) that conveys the ideas of both ‘mindfulness’ and ‘care.’ The practice of Appamāda implies that we must be awakened to the world and all the beings around us, and that in such an awakened state we become capable of responding to and caring for them effectively.”

Buddhism denies the existence of God and His salvation by grace through Jesus Christ.  Instead, “salvation” rests in human effort.  The Buddhist practice of Appamāda, in conjunction with extensive periods of meditation, can lead us to find within ourselves our own moral justification through enlightenment resulting in a greater mindfulness and a caring attitude.  Clark blames the “capitalist society of mass consumption” for generating “a certain form of selfhood that is inclined to obsessive desires, powerful addictions, and sick attachments.”  Clark goes on to suggest that capitalism generates “…an entire culture of consumption that socializes us into believing that a world of obsessive craving is the only one possible.”  On the other hand, as we are enlightened, we overcome the inclination to satisfy our compulsions and destructive behavior toward ourselves and the Earth.

In contrast to the subjectivity of Buddhism, Christianity is based on the objective revelation and authenticity of God’s Word (2 Peter 1: 20-21).  The inspired Scriptures reveal everything we need to know about our moral state, our responsibility before God, our justification, and our future.  God’s objective revelation culminates in the revelation of His Son, Jesus Christ, the Living Word, and His incarnate birth, sinless life, death, and resurrection.

Whereas, the Buddhist targets the material world and capitalist society as sources of our cravings, addictions, and unhealthy attachments, Christianity locates the source of our destructive thoughts and behavior within the sin-corrupted mind and heart of each person.  We are rebels in the image of Adam and Eve who yielded to Satan’s lies.  Romans 1: 21-24 reveals the pathetic path our ancestors chose (emphasis added to highlight progression): 

For although
(a) they knew God,
(b) they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him,
(c) but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 
(d) Therefore, God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another.

Unlike Buddhism which offers unending cycles of reincarnation, Christianity offers the free gift of eternal life beginning at the moment of salvation by faith.  Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life (John 6: 47).”  Christian theology teaches that each individual is bound for eternal suffering in Hell unless justified by faith in the suffering, death, and resurrection of God the Son who paid the price for our justification (Romans 6: 23).  The Apostle Peter wrote, Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God.  He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit (1 Peter 3: 18).

The Christian is born again to new life and now has the power of the Spirit of Christ to enable him or her to produce “the fruit of the Spirit which is love, joy, peace, patience… self-control; against such things there is no law” (Galatians 5: 22-23).  This fruit is contrasted with works of our flesh which are “…sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry,” and other compulsions (v. 19-21) which John P. Clark named as the cause of environmental degradation. 

New Profession: “Steward’
The Christ-follower does not have to seek personal identity in materialism and excessive consumption.  Instead, he or she finds love, joy, peace, and self-control in his or her intimate walk with God.  Spirit-led Christ-followers reject the path of the first man, Adam, who was given dominion and stewardship of the Earth but rebelled, leading to the Fall of mankind (Genesis 1: 28; 2: 15).   

The Christ-follower is reborn and renewed in the Spirit of the “second Adam (Christ)” to serve as steward of God’s grace and God’s creation.  This stewardship is central to his or her keeping of the two great commandments—loving God whole-heartedly and loving neighbor as much as love for self (Matthew 22: 36-40).  The steward who focuses on loving God and neighbor is wonderfully positioned to balance his or her vibrant hope of eternal Heaven with a commitment to stewardship of the Earth which he or she serves for the glory of God and the good of neighbor.  In contrast to the ambiguity and subjectivism of Buddhism and all other man-derived religions, the Christian faith provides a clear, complete, and objective revelation through the Scriptures.  Environmental ethicist, J.B. Callicott, has written, The Judeo-Christian Stewardship Environmental Ethic is especially elegant and powerful.  It also exquisitely matches the requirements of conservation biology [by conferring] objective intrinsic value on nature in the clearest and most unambiguous of ways:  by divine decree².  

What Are Your Greatest Risks?
Would you ever choose to stand beneath or locate your camp under a cliff overhang with a decaying log teetering above you?  We hope not; at least before you assess the risk of danger.  We also hope this article has helped you consider how you are prioritizing among the various social and global risks that pose a threat to you and your loved ones, community, and nation.  Shouldn't we all try to become more knowledgeable of how science, politics, and religious faith are influencing our leaders?   Then, we can be better prepared to exercise our voices and our votes in support of leaders who will make wise decisions.   

From our Christian faith, we conclude by saying, God offers Christ-followers the promise of life forever in the New Heaven and the New Earth in which righteousness dwells (Revelation 21-22).  Some of us may die from underestimating risk.  Others of us may be called by Christ our Savior to risk our lives for a person or for the cause of His Gospel.  Regardless, both the Scriptures and experience tell us our death rate is 100%.   After this comes judgment that determines where we will spend eternity (Hebrews 9: 27).  Risk of calamity from climate warming is worthy of consideration, but the risk of eternal damnation and separation from God is 100% if we reject God’s provision through the Cross of Christ.  About what risks are you most concerned?

Comments and Questions:
As always, we welcome your responses using the “Comments” link below to express your thoughts and questions about this article, or what you believe and why.  You may also write privately to silviusj@gmail.com
-------
Footnote:
¹ Maitra, Sumantra. "Climate Worship Is Nothing More than Rebranded Paganism.  The Federalist, September 26, 2019.

² Van Dyke, Fred. 2006. Cultural Transformation and Conservation: Growth, Influence, and Challenges for the Judeo-Christian Stewardship Environmental Ethic Perspective on Science and Christian Faith 58(1):48

Related Readings:
“Creation Care and Christian Character” Creation Care, Summer, 2007
“Calling for Stewardship Without a Master” July 2, 2013
“Fundamentals of Conservation, Part 3 "Serving with Our Neighbor” November 23, 2014
“Paris Accord: Wrong Climate for Creation Care”   Oikonomia, June 9, 2017
“Climate Change in Context – 1. Getting the ‘Atmosphere’ Right.”  September 21, 2019
“Earthkeeping and Character: Book Review” December 5, 2020