Making “Creation Care Connections”

It is a beautiful thing to observe relationships functioning in harmony as God our Creator desires.  We feel joy and satisfaction when we experience or observe the mutual enjoyment of a married couple in love; or the performance of a sports team functioning like a well oiled machine in an exciting contest.  Some of us find a similar satisfying beauty when we experience the interactions of creatures in a forest community or in a prairie landscape or in a colorful, undersea, coral community.

In this article, I will share a few inspiring examples of how a simple willingness to become involved in expressing the love of our Creator to our "human neighbors" and to our "creation neighbors" can help us to form “creation care connections”—i.e. connections that bring our Creator, His creation, and our neighbor together--"for good."

As humans, we experience joy and satisfaction from harmonious relationships because God is relational (i.e. perfect harmony among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and He created and equipped us to love Him and to love our neighbor (Mark 12: 30-31) and to love and care for His creation (Genesis 1: 27-28; 2: 15).  Readers who have put their faith in God’s love gift of His Son as a sacrifice for our sins will understand the Apostle Paul’s words, Above all, be loving. This ties everything together perfectly (Colossians 3:14).  Pure faith in a perfect God provides the oil for well functioning relationships.

New kiosk constructed by Gospel Road 2018 and FMCPT

Now, allow me to share a few inspiring examples of how the exercise of “creation care” can allow us to form “creation care connections”—i.e. connections among our Creator, His creation, and our neighbor. My first example involves our wonderful national and state parks, preserves, and trails.  For many people, especially the majority who live in urban communities, these places may offer the only exposure to the soul-satisfying beauty of the creation.  But parks and trails require continual administration and maintenance in order to provide safe and accommodating services to hikers, equestrians, boaters, and cyclists.  As individuals and families, when we visit parks and natural areas, we can form a “creation care connection” by simply following park rules or by stopping to pick up litter.

Just this past week, approximately 150 high school students, grades 9-12, from all over central Ohio participated in a five-day, mission-focused, work camp called the Gospel Road 2018.  The students along with their adult chaperones and volunteers represent Catholic churches and schools throughout the Diocese of Columbus.   According to Wayne Roberts, Executive Director of the Friends of Madison Co. Parks and Trails (FMCPT), the workers devoted their time and energy to approximately 46 projects.

Gospel Road 2018 workers at refurbished kiosk (London, OH)

Of particular interest to me are two of the projects completed by the Gospel Road 2018 teens involving the FMCPT.  First, they constructed a kiosk for the Little Darby State Scenic River Preserve north of London, OH, in Monroe Twp. of Madison Co.  The teens also contributed their “elbow grease” and skills to sanding and staining the kiosks near and around the Prairie Grass Trailhead at London, Ohio. 

According to Roberts, “both the student volunteers and the instructors-adult leaders were generous, good-hearted people.”  Needless to say, these teens and their leaders formed a “creation care connection” with their neighbors from the FMCPT, with bicyclists and other users of Madison Co. parks, and with the living creatures that reside in the parks and trials and give them structure and beauty.  Through their hard work, the Gospel Road 2018 group left an aroma of the “good news” for the benefit of both God’s creation and future park visitors through the caring connections they formed.

My second example to illustrate the formation of a “creation care connection” has a more expansive scale; one that spans two continents.  Beginning June 20, a small team used their skill of stand up paddle boarding (SUP-ing) to travel from Cooperstown, NY on a 444-mile trip down the Susquehanna River.  The paddle boarders were led by Peter Savard, assistant professor of nursing at Cedarville University.  The team included Savard’s daughter, Ainsley, a high school student; Jared Mitchell, a 3-D modeling and design teacher at Troy Christian School, and students from Cedarville and Wright State Universities. 

#SUP4WATER paddlers and portable clean water equipment

Prof. Savard is founder and chairman of Global Water Consortium which supports sustainable clean water projects in remote areas of the world.  As quoted in the Wyoming Co. Press Examiner in Tunkhannock, PA., Savard stated, “Throughout the trip, we will carry the same water equipment used to establish clean water projects in developing countries to showcase its mobility in remote locations.” 

The #SUP4WATER paddle board trip was completed last week.  During the time devoted to this 30-day trip, Water Consortium statistics estimate that 126,540 children in Kenya and India will die due to unsafe water.  According to Savard, “The goal is to raise $1 for each of these children and to bring increased awareness for sustainable water projects around the world.  Those who wish to donate to #SUP4WATER may do so at the Global Water Consortium website.  Additional details of the Susquehanna trip are provided through social media:  Facebook.com/GlobalWaterConsortium, Instagram.com/global_water_consortium, and Twitter.com/@peteGWC Global Water Consortium.

#SUP4WATER member, former student, and friend, Jared Mitchell

Both of my examples of “creation care connections” have featured a common invitation rooted in the biblical commands to be stewards of the Earth.  Stewardship of the creation is the fundamental context within which we express through our actions a supreme love for our Creator and love for our neighbor.  While we find satisfaction and “re-creation” in beautiful parks and along scenic trails, we should also look for ways that we can contribute to the stewardship of these places. 

Local park districts and allied citizen’s groups often invite volunteers to join in work day efforts while many states have the Adopt-a-Highway program.  As in the case of stand up paddle boarding to improve water quality in needy areas of the world, the steward first sees the need; then, is convinced of the importance of that need; and finally, becomes involved in making a “creation care connection.” Here, the connection was prompted by love for our “human neighbors” on another continent and the expression of that love through caring for the “creation neighbor,” in this case, the water quality upon which our human neighbor depends for life.  When environmental stewardship done for the glory of God, the connection is complete because God, humanity, and creation are all served—a beautiful and satisfying result.

Co-Leaders of the Prairie Grass Trail Ride at a remnant prairie

Immediate Application:
If you live in Eastern U.S.,  I would welcome you to make your own “creation care connection” by joining us on Saturday, July 28 at the trailhead of the Prairie Grass Trail in London, OH at 8:00 am for a leisurely bike ride through some scenic remnants of the original prairie in SW Ohio, preserved along a former railroad right-of-way.  Here, you can connect with members of the Friends of Madison County Parks and Trails, and representatives of other local public and private organizations who are interested in management of these prairie wildflower and grass communities.  Of special emphasis this year will be how to connect with creation by learning to collect seed and grow native wildflowers and grasses in your garden or on other land over which you exercise stewardship.  See Prairie Grass Trail Ride online poster and I hope to see you there.

But Isn't Loving My "Creation Neighbor" a Distraction?
I'm glad you may be asking this question.  I have written more on this topic in a previous Oikonomia under the title, Fundamentals of Conservation, Part 3 "Serving with Our Neighbor"  That article includes reference to my friend Lynn Holtzman's master's thesis entitled “Nature as Neighbor: Aldo Leopold’s Extension of Ethics to the Land.”  I would urge you read more on this important subject, beginning with my previous article.  For now, allow me to summarize my point about our responsibility to both "creation neighbor" and "human neighbor."

God revealed His design for relationships in the Genesis 1 account of the origin of creation where we read of His mandate to Adam and his offspring to exercise dominion over creation (Genesis 1: 27-28).  Genesis 2 elaborates on the nature of the Dominion Mandate.  We are to live as “servant rulers,” or stewards, of creation (Genesis 2: 15).  Indeed, servanthood was to be the primary occupation through which humans would demonstrate their obedience to 2 other fundamental commands –to love the Lord God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength; and to love our neighbor as ourselves (Mark 12: 30-31).  These three commands form a tri-unity because God asks us to (1) choose carefully our activities as stewards of His material creation in light of whether or not they (2) express our love to Him and (3) love to our neighbor.  Conversely, we demonstrate our love for God and for our neighbor by the way in which we exercise “creation care” through proper handling of the material gifts God has entrusted to us to manage and use for the greatest good.  Indeed, we cannot love “our human neighbors” without proper love and respect for “our creation neighbors,” the soil, water, air and creatures, upon which “our human neighbor” depends for life.  Hopefully, the two examples cited in the main article above illustrate how volunteering our time, energy, and resources can express our love to God through acts that help both our neighbor and the creation context upon which his life depends.

Paris Accord: Wrong Climate for Creation Care

They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."  -- Genesis 11: 4

Ratification of the Paris Agreement

In 2015, President Obama and leaders of nearly 200 other nations met near Paris, France to constitute the World Climate Change Conference (WCCC).  Their mission was to establish goals to reduce global carbon emissions in favor of renewable energy sources.  The conference drafted the Paris Agreement which was entered into force in November, 2016.

The Paris Agreement, or Paris Accord, calls for each nation to submit its own climate-action plan for reducing its emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases (GHG’s) in favor of adopting clean energy policies (e.g. solar- and wind-powered energy generation).  The Obama proposal committed the USA to reduce emissions by 26-28% by 2025 as referenced to 2005 levels when the US emitted 6,132 million metric tons of CO₂.

By an executive order, President Obama included the United States in the agreement in 2015, but did not submit his proposal to Congress for ratification.  Absence of congressional ratification would leave the door open for any future president to “cancel” any responsibilities of the US to the agreement.  On June 1, President Trump stepped through that open door. 

The president announced that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Agreement. He summarized his decision for the US to exit the agreement with these words:

As president, I have one obligation and that obligation is to the American people. The Paris Accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risk and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.  It is time to exit the Paris Accord. And time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens and our country.

President Trump’s announcement to withdraw the US from the Paris Accord unleashed yet another sea of controversy among the many surrounding the policies of his administration.  Like many issues facing the world today, global climate science is layered with complexities.  The politics and economics surrounding the climate science add to the complexity.  Therefore, I do not pretend to be an expert on this multidisciplinary topic.  Nor will I try to offer the last word.

For purposes of this article, I will affirm four claims that advocates use to justify taking action to address global warming, or climate change:
(1) Global concentrations of atmospheric CO₂ and other GHG’s have generally increased during the last century.
(2)  Human-generated (anthropogenic) GHG’s contribute to the increase in atmospheric GHG’s 
(3)  A correlation exists between the increase in GHG’s and increasing average global temperatures.
(4) Increased atmospheric GHG’s from both natural and human sources are partly responsible for the increase in average global temperature. 

Although I affirm the above claims, it is not clear to me that human efforts to address climate change are headed in the right direction.  Therefore, what follows is a brief sketch of my concerns.  Although these concerns are all interrelated, I will present them under three categories, scientific, geopolitical, and biblical.

SCIENCE CONSIDERATIONS

From the scientific perspective, I do not believe the four claims above are so strongly supported as to be called “settled science” as many climate alarmists have asserted.  Therefore, I will offer the several points, each accompanied with some additional sources to read and consider.

Steady increase in CO₂ (decreases in summer) 

(a)  Multiple Contributing Factors:  There are valid reasons for questioning how much human activities actually contribute to the total annual increases in GHG’s.  A report by G. Wang (2017) suggests that sun spot activity and planetary motion with possible connection to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle may also contribute significantly to climate change. Changes in cloud forcing, atmospheric components such as water vapor, and regional land use changes should be considered in addition to anthropogenic GHG’s.

(b)  Climate Models:  Some respected climate scientists question the predictive accuracy of climate models and hence the degree of urgency of our response to climate change.  Dr. Richard Lindzen, respected atmospheric physicist, has criticized climate models. But, he has also contributed excellent research in efforts to improve climate models.  Dr. Lindzen submitted a public letter to President Trump with hundreds of scientists as signatories, urging the president to revoke “the U.S. signature under the 1992 treaty signed in Rio which became a cornerstone for the subsequent Kyoto and Paris treaties.” 

According to Cal Beisner, founder and spokesman of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, writing in the Washington Times, scientific evidence is mounting that climate models are overstating carbon dioxide’s warming effect. Beisner cites University of Alabama climatologist John Christy who testified in Congress on March 29 saying “the models call for warming of 0.389 ^oF per decade.  But weather balloon measurements find only 0.2 ^oF, satellite measurements 0.211 ^oF and re-analyses of data from major weather centers around the world 0.221 ^oF. Observed warming is about one-half to three-fifths what the models predict.”

(c)  Ethics Under Pressure: Climate scientists are under considerable peer pressure as well as pressure from research funding sources and from those in the environmental movement, thus making the climate science community vulnerable to breaches in ethics.  Richard Lindzen whom I cited above has testified in the U.S. Senate that he “personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of their statements."  For a more recent review of ethical concerns in science, see “The Conscience of Science: Part 1 Ethics and Accountability.”

GEOPOLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Besides my scientific concerns, I have geopolitical concerns about the complex web of interrelationships among international leaders, scientists, lobbyists, politicians, industries, NGO’s, and climate activists.  The environmental concerns, motivations, and intentions of each party rest upon the belief that there is a credible scientific case for climate change.  But, as I have stated, climate science is not “settled science.”  Furthermore, we ought to ask whether nearly 200 nations would gather at the table and sign onto an agreement to limit their use of fossil fuels simply because they are concerned about climate warming.  Could most of the gathered leaders have come with an open purse waiting to be filled?

(a)  Paris Agreement Goal is to limit global temperature increase to 1.5^o above pre-industrial levels.  This goal is to be achieved by encouraging the 195 nations that have signed the agreement to pledge to reduce fossil fuel usage in favor of renewable energy—largely solar and wind power.  However, a study published in Nature, in 2016, claimed that the combined national pledges will be insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement goal of keeping global temperature rise "well below 2 °C." The Washington Times has published computations by Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus think tank.  Lomborg estimated the impact of the Paris Agreement using the assumptions of climate change advocates about how much warming comes from CO₂, and assuming all provisions of all signers were implemented.  He concluded that the Paris Agreement would “prevent only 0.306 °F of global warming by 2100.”  This fraction of 1°F is hardly a statistically significant measure of the “good” that would presumably come at a cost estimated at $739-$757 billion per year!  Lomborg summarizes the estimated cost:  All told, $924-$946 billion.  Per year. Every year from 2030 to the end of the century… So, for $65-$132 trillion, we might — if the alarmists are right — reduce global average temperature by a third of one degree by 2100.  That’s $212-$431 billion per thousandth of a degree of cooling.”  Next question:  Who will come up with this kind of money?

United States takes the leadership in financial commitment.

(b)  Financing through the Green Fund:  Under the assumption that developed nations are more financially equipped than developing nations, the Paris Agreement calls for developed nations to mobilize $100 billion per year to assist developing nations in mitigating and adapting to climate change.  Based on the fact that the US funds a disproportionate amount of the annual budget in the United Nations and of NATO, both of which have treaty-binding status, it is not hard to guess who would be stuck with the lion’s share of funding for the Green Fund.  It is not clear exactly what specific programs this would fund.  Nor is it clear who would administer the programs.

Other major producers of  CO₂ must reduce emissions, too.

(c)  Commitment to Paris Agreement is based not on a signed, binding treaty, but on an unbinding agreement ratified in 2016.  Therefore, it seems important that we assess the level of commitment of individual signatory nations to achieve their goals in the future within the Paris Agreement.  According to a report by the Institute for Energy Research, “the United States had the greatest share of wind and solar electricity (5.4 percent) among the 3 countries in 2015—the year of the most recent data available. China had a 3.9 percent share and India had a 3.7 percent share of wind and solar power to total electricity generation.”  On the other hand, of the three largest producers of CO₂, only the United States has made significant progress in reducing emissions.  Shouldn’t Americans consider that our president might be right in withdrawing from the Paris Agreement?  After all, America has demonstrated a proven commitment to and success in reducing carbon emissions and adopting alternative energies in addition to showing good faith in contributing a generous amount up front to fund the program.  Shouldn’t we consider that the US might accomplish Paris goals on its own while saving billions that we could otherwise invest in areas of clearly demonstrated urgency in developing countries—e.g. soil conservation, sanitation, and nutrition?

(d )  Paris Agreement:  Good or Bad for the Poor?  With billions of dollars being transferred to foreign leaders, agencies, and administrators it is clear that the Agreement will be “good” for at least some, perhaps many people, and perhaps the Earth.  But, will the millions in poverty see opportunity to better their lives?  I urge readers to research the question of whether the Paris Agreement would actually promote better access for the poor to affordable energy and opportunity. 

As one who has studied and tried to apply biblical environmental stewardship principles, I would suggest two resources that address how individual Christians and the Evangelical church ought to respond to the issue of climate change.  In 2011, the National Association of Evangelicals published “Loving the Least of These: Addressing a Changing Environment” as a clear and forceful application of biblical environmental stewardship principles, particularly as they relate to the poor (Matthew 25: 36-44).  The author, Dorothy Boorse, explains that climate change will disproportionately affect the poor.  However, returning to our discussion of the Paris Agreement’s transfer of billions to developing countries, we must ask whether our tax dollars are being used most effectively when the target is to reduce a hypothetical fraction of degree of global temperature based on questionable climate model projections. 

The Cornwall Alliance offers an alternative view of how climate change policies such as the Paris Agreement may affect the poor, in an article entitled “Protect the Poor: Ten Reasons to Oppose Harmful Climate Change Policies.”  The authors argue that proposals for shifting to alternative energy sources will increase energy costs and disproportionately affect the poor who spend a higher percentage of their income on energy.  The result will be, in effect, a regressive tax—“taxing the poor at higher rates than the rich.”  Furthermore, funding for climate change programs will divert financial commitment from projects where it “could do far more good by providing pure drinking water, sewage sanitation, electrification, nutrition supplements, infectious disease control, health care, and other benefits to the world’s poor.” Beisner sees the Green Fund as yet another wrong-headed effort to help the poor.  Placing billions of dollars in the hands of a few powerful money lenders who then pick and choose winners has historically not solved poverty, either at the national level (Think “War on Poverty.”), or international level (Think World Bank.).  Instead, the best policy for the world’s poor, the policy that will most help them rise out of poverty, is for governments to get out of the business of picking winners and losers in the energy field (as in all others) and let free-market competition decide.

BIBLICAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Since the confusion of one human language at the Tower of Babal; and, the geographic, ethnic, and cultural divergence that followed, mankind has been unable to reunite around one cause for the benefit of either humanity or the planet.  Our efforts through human reason, philosophy, the sciences, and religion have all failed, many times with the bloody defeat of a tyrannical ideologue or the collapse of a mighty empire or civilization.  Likewise, well meaning humanistic efforts to bring peace have failed.  For example, in spite of its name, billions spent, and the sincere toil of many dedicated people, the United Nations has had very limited success in bring peace and prosperity to Earth.  Therefore, I am not optimistic that trillions of dollars amassed and distributed through the Green Fund will bring “good” either to God’s creation or to the many who are forgotten either in Detroit or in Dhaka. 

However, the inspired revelation of Scripture reveals that throughout human history, God was at work to redeem us, speaking long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days [God] has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (Hebrews 1: 1-2).  And He…upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high…(Heb. 1: 3b) …Who also intercedes for us (Romans 8: 34b), having chosen us to be His body, set apart (sanctified), holy and acceptable to God as a beacon of His Truth to a lost and spiritually dying world.  For there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4: 12).

As evangelicals, members of Christ’s body by faith in His atoning death and resurrection, consider how to respond to environmental issues like climate change, we should not question the importance of either caring for God’s creation, or assisting the poor with an opportunity to fulfill their God-given purposes.  Rather, we ought to consider the validity of climate science claims and projections, and carefully evaluate where funds are most needed in order to do the most good for the most lives in today’s world.  In addition, we must remember that, as members of Christ’s body, the church, we are called to do “good deeds” as a means for the poor to earn their daily bread, but also to provide the “good news,” the Gospel, of the Bread of Eternal Life.  If the Christian voice within the climate change community is not spoken in loving word and deed, we are salt that is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men (Matthew 5:13).

For as the earth brings forth its sprouts,
And as a garden causes the things sown in it to spring up,
So the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise
To spring up before all the nations.  – Isaiah 61:11

Additional Reading:
1.  If you are a Christ-follower who is confused about how to "integrate" the call of God to "preach the Gospel in word and deed" with His call to stewardship of His creation, consider reading "Creation Care and Christian Character" which provides a helpful list of additional readings.

2.  Fundamentals of Conservation, Part 1 "Serving With" Our Creator -- Article #1 Biblical Foundation

3. Calling forStewardship Without a Master

What Does It Mean to Be “Pro-Life?”

Our current age of sound bytes, blogs, and slogans can easily distract us from thinking broadly, deeply, and biblically about complex cultural issues.  The combination of small bits, fast transmission, and high volume of information can discourage careful reasoning and the public discourse necessary to define, analyze, and resolve social, political, and ethical issues.

A case in point is the recent exchange between some pro-life leaders and the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) over what pro-life leaders see as a misuse of the term “pro-life.”   The latest objection came in response to the testimony by Rev. Mitch Hescox, President of the EEN, at a congressional hearing of the Energy & Commerce Committee when he stated:

Biblically, being ‘pro-life’ is far more than being ‘anti-abortion.’ Jesus said that he came to bring life and life in abundance (John 10:10). We believe that includes spreading the gospel, standing up against abortion, reaching the lost, helping the least of these, and being good stewards of God’s creation. In essence, to be ‘pro-life’ is to be ‘pro-whole gospel.’[i]

Rev. Hescox’s testimony was invited to inform the Energy & Commerce Committee as they discuss new emission standards for coal and oil-fired power plants that release mercury and affect fresh water sources.  The proposed “Utility Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MACT)” rule would address allowable levels of the toxic metal in the environment.  The Center for Disease Control estimates that at the time of birth, approximately 1 in 6 children in the United States carry threatening levels of mercury.

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill) spoke on behalf of pro-lifers who object to the more comprehensive definition of “pro-life” expressed above by Rev. Hescox.  According to Shimkus,

Truly pro-life issues are issues of life and death” and “we in the pro-life community take great offense when an evangelical movement tries to usurp the meaning of ‘pro-life.’[ii]

Two notions of what it means to be "pro-life"

So, who is right?  Are members of the environmental movement unfairly usurping the anti-abortion/pro-life movement by expanding the meaning to the term “pro-life?”  Or, is there merit in rallying around a more comprehensive perspective of the sanctity of human life; one that calls for Christian stewardship of all of life, human and non-human?

Lest I contradict my earlier caution against finding quick answers for complex issues with a few sound bytes and blogs, I must acknowledge that this blog posting cannot be the final word.  Instead, I hope to lay out some considerations that will stimulate readers toward further reading, reasoning, and response.

First, I have an admission to make.  In 2000, during the close presidential race between Al Gore and George W. Bush, I attempted to expand Bush’s concept of “compassionate conservatism” to include what I called compassionate conservationism.  The main point of my essay published in Christianity Today was as follows:

Moral conservatives are successfully articulating a biblical worldview regarding sexual abstinence before marriage, sanctity of life, and the importance of moral teaching in our schools. Consistent with this, they must also articulate the case for a compassionate conservationism, an environmental ethic rooted in a biblical worldview. Such an ethic would redefine “environmentalists” as those who are concerned about the environment of all of life. [iii]  

My intent, both then and now, was not to gloss over the serious moral failure of our culture that allows the innocent lives of babies to be snuffed out by abortion.  I would oppose any individual or group that seeks to gloss over or otherwise diminish the moral tragedy of abortion by diverting attention from it to environmental issues such as climate change, habitat destruction, toxic pollution, or environmental and social justice.

I do not believe Rev. Hescox or the EEN is seeking to unjustly usurp the “pro-life” movement or diminish the grave importance of respecting the sanctity of human life.  Rather, I believe they are seeking to challenge us to view it more broadly and biblically.  Before drawing your own conclusions, let’s consider what legitimate objections there are against an effort to reconcile the two major notions of what it means to be “pro-life.”  Allow me to briefly list and comment on three possible objections.

First, is the argument of “confused terminology” articulated by Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council when he stated,

The term pro-life originated historically in the struggle to end abortion on demand and continued to be used overwhelmingly in that sense.  To ignore that is at best sloppy communication and at worst intentional deception.[iv]

If we are concerned that the sanctity of human life cause might be jeopardized if terminology is confused, perhaps it will be necessary to abandon the more politically correct term “pro-life” in favor of the term “anti-abortion” or “anti-death.”  Clarification of terms is fundamental to discourse on any issue and should not be cause for division, at least among those who strive for the same goals.

Let’s call the second objection the argument of “confused theology.” Hescox and the EEN make a strong case for extension of the sanctity of life ethic to include “all of life” when Hescox stated last December:

We’re called as Christians to defend the sacredness of life.  As a pro-life community we have a biblical responsibility to protect the unborn and infants from pollutants that will prevent them from reaching their full potential.  There is no known safe levels of mercury which cause neurological damage to the unborn.  Jesus tells us to do nothing that would hinder our children. Mercury poisoning from their mothers eating contaminated fish threaten our children from such an abundant life.”[v]

On the other hand, I am sympathetic with the concern articulated by Rep. Shimkus and others who object to the notion that abortion should be added to a long list of environmental concerns that only indirectly affect human life.  After all, the abortionist’s tools directly kill an unborn baby; whereas, it is proposed that coal-fired power plants that release mercury can only indirectly affect the health of an unborn child when the child’s mother ingests mercury-contaminated fish.

So, the question becomes, are we ethically responsible to do all that is reasonably possible to protect the life of the unborn from both direct and indirect threats?  In this context, a command from the Torah may be instructive:

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise..... Exodus 21:22-25 (NASB)

Many would interpret this passage as affirming the personhood and value of the unborn child[vi]   If this is true, and we agree that is was not the intent of the scuffling men to harm the woman let alone her unborn child, then this Scripture seems to affirm our accountability for indirect effects upon the unborn.

Returning to the concern about mercury poisoning, the science of ecology is providing a clearer understanding of indirect effects of this heavy metal which can move with food, nutrients, and toxic chemicals within the so-called food web of life.  Although few of us would directly ingest toxic mercury, or commit the act of poisoning his or her neighbor, the actions of anyone responsible for releasing mercury into water and poisoning fish or other creatures which are then eaten by his or her neighbor would seem to be in violation of the command to “love thy neighbor as thyself” if it is clear that harm or death resulted indirectly from the action.
 

Note also that the ecological food web that pictures the links between polluted water, fish, and mankind makes it harder for us to ignore our intimate linkage and responsibility to nonhuman creatures.  The Judeo-Christian theology that affirms humankind as the uniquely created image bearers of God does not give us grounds to treat other parts of God’s creation with disdain or as simply a backdrop in the human drama.  Instead, we are responsible to use our platform as image bearers to represent the benevolent rule and character of God to His creation (Genesis 1: 26-28; 2:15). Therefore, poisoning of stream water by mercury from power plant emissions that indirectly and unintentionally harms both fish and my neighbor who ingests the fish is a violation of two major biblical commands -- biblical dominion and stewardship over God’s creatures whom He created for His glory (Revelation 4:11); and, violation of the command to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 2:39).

A third objection to a more comprehensive pro-life stand may be called the argument of “murky or confused science.”  The argument of the EEN that mercury poisoning, like abortion, “threatens and impedes life” must be substantiated by good scientific data.  In addition to Rev. Hescox’s testimony before the Energy & Commerce Committee on behalf of EEN, the committee heard testimony from Julie Goodman, a toxicologist (Ph.D. Johns Hopkins University) who stated that, although implementation of MACT standards for mercury is projected to “reduce the disease burden in America to such an extent that it will translate to tens of billions of dollars saved, …the largest benefits from [MACT] are derived not from reducing mercury, but from reducing fine particulate matter (PM2.5).”[vii]  Goodman then added:

Despite the vast array of peer-reviewed scientific literature on the topic, EPA based its calculations on only two PM2.5 epidemiology studies that reported statistical associations between PM2.5 reductions and health benefits and assumed a causal relationship.

I am aware of no rebuttal to this scientifically documented testimony which cautions against adopting an environmental policy based on an apparently biased selection of scientific reports, which furthermore, suggest benefits not from mercury reduction but from reduction in particulate matter.  It is still possible that additional scientific data may provide justification for lowering mercury emissions.  Although our technology allows us to detect minute levels of toxic chemicals, there is also need to identify what the threshold levels for toxicity in the blood are and whether or not these are being exceeded under current standards.

In conclusion, the arguments from “terminology” and “theology” do not provide strong reasons to oppose the EEN’s call to extend the pro-life boundary to include “… anything that threatens and impedes life, especially impacts on the unborn and young children.…”[viii] However, the argument from “science” suggests that the jury still needs further data and time to decide whether there is indeed a legitimate threat to life under current standards.  Meanwhile, I believe that Christians who are committed to the sanctity of human life should agree to respectful discourse with others who seek to raise awareness of our ethical responsibility toward the health and well being of both humans and the non-human creation which provides the context of human life and welfare.  

---

[i]  Evangelical Environmental Network:  http://creationcare.org/view.php?id=513

[ii] Institute on Religion and Democracy,  http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2291

[iii] Silvius, J. E.  2001. Conservation: Protecting Bald Eagles and Babies.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/june11/42.93.html

[iv] Tony Perkins as quoted in WORLD,  February 25, 2012

[v] The Christian Post, February 21, 2012.

 http://global.christianpost.com/news/god-calls-pro-life-evangelicals-to-combat-mercury-pollution-64973/

[vi] Koukl, Greg.  “What Exodus 21:22 Says about Abortion."   Solid Ground , Jan./Feb., 2010

[vii] Goodman, Julie L.  1012.  EPA's Assessment of Health Benefits Associated with PM2.5 Reductions for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.  See http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/hhrg-112-if03-wstate-jgoodman-20120208.pdf

[viii]  Mitch Hescox as quoted in WORLD,  February 25, 2012

Stewardship of Righteousness -- Part Two

In the previous Oikonomia entry, we considered the trend in which increasing numbers of evangelicals are responding to calls to care for God’s creation, or to the poor and powerless by taking a stand for “social justice.” Recently, creation care and social justice ministries have begun to merge into a more broadly integrated “environmental- social justice” movement in efforts to address issues formerly considered quite separate– climate change, affordable housing, immigration, and accessible health care.

We emphasized that Christian environmentalism and other forms of social activism need not be at odds with biblical evangelism. Indeed, Christian environmental stewardship can foster a biblical foundation on which to build a life and a home to be salt and light in a world that has lost its moorings and is adrift on the waves of moral relativism, economic materialism, and scientific naturalism. Yet, we need wisdom to “balance” between maintaining our individual spiritual disciplines while using our gifts and abilities to exercise influence at the community and institutional levels.

If we are to nurture a growing love and obedience to God, extend charity toward our neighbor, and exercise stewardship of God’s creation, I believe we need to adopt a “stewardship of righteousness” (see Oikonomia, June 30, 2010). Individually, we must work to keep the “spiritual fire of our hearts” burning if we are to be good followers and leaders in a corporate or social sense. With great humility and recognition of my own need of grace, I will note that we are not without examples of respected evangelical, environmental leaders who have ended up in moral and/or ethical bankruptcy.

So, how can I judge the intensity of the “spiritual fire within my heart?” Church attendance and service? Prayer life? “Amount of time spent reading the Bible? What others say about me? All of these may be expressions of righteousness, but let’s hear the psalmist speak from the fire of his love, devotion, and felt need of God:

As the deer pants for the water brooks,
So my soul pants for You, O God.
My soul thirsts for God, for the living God;
When shall I come and appear before God? – Psalm 42: 1-2

His “spiritual fire” is expressed not by his desire to “do the things of God; or for God” but by his desperate need for the presence God Himself. Elsewhere, we read the psalmists expression of his desire for God’s temple and the opportunity to worship:

How lovely are Your dwelling places, O LORD of hosts!
My soul longed and even yearned for the courts of the LORD;
My heart and my flesh sing for joy to the living God. – Psalm 84: 1-2

Then I will go to the altar of God,
To God my exceeding joy;
And upon the lyre I shall praise You, O God, my God. – Psalm 43:4

My “stewardship of righteousness,” requires that I regularly “kindle afresh” (2 Timothy 1:6) the fire of the Spirit within me through the spiritual disciplines of prayer, Scripture reading, and meditation in Scripture. As a result, the life of the Spirit within me stirs a yearning for God, for fellowship with His people, and for worship. These words from the psalmist are indeed inspired (“Spirit-breathed”) because they speak of the very desire of God in the person of His Spirit within us to be in communion with God.

Interestingly, as the psalmist expresses his longing for and need of God, he also notices that God’s welcome of him extends to His other creatures as well. Our Creator not only welcomes fellowship and intimacy with us, but His presence is also a place of welcome and safety for the sparrow of which God is mindful.

The bird also has found a house,
And the swallow a nest for herself,
where she may lay her young,
Even Your altars, O LORD of hosts,
My King and my God. – Psalm 84:3

Could it be that when we practice the disciplines above to keep the “spiritual fire” of our heart burning for a growing desire and felt need of God in our daily lives that we gain an additional benefit? Might we also begin to see the creation, our families, our neighbor, the environmental and social needs around us as God sees them?

Prayer: Heavenly Father, help me to reflect on the above thoughts myself so that this inspiration may provide for me and for readers of Oikonomia the wisdom to be stewards of our gift of righteousness in Christ our Savior. Help us then to express this stewardship in our daily walk and service so that it will resemble more and more the walk of Christ as we see the world through His eyes. Amen.

Creation Care and Stewardship of Righteousness

Forty years ago this past April, I joined one of the first Earth Day gatherings and experienced the growing wave of interest in the “environmental movement” of the 1970's. Attention was focused on “pollution”, pesticides, population growth, and the politics of Vietnam and the cold war era. Many would agree that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) born in that era has had a positive role in reducing pollution and pesticides. The decades of the 1980's brought increased prosperity and an end to “the cold war.”

As the “walls came down” between East and West in Europe, and the economy began to ride the wave of computers and the internet, there was less concern about “the environment.” That is until scientists and politicians in the late 1980's began to turn our attention to what appeared to be a series of steadily increasing global temperatures. During the same period, Lynn White’s “Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis” gained traction among some evangelicals because of his charge that Christianity was responsible for a growing “arrogance toward nature.” Some evangelical leaders and biblically literate scientists joined in significant discussions and wrote influential books and papers that emphasized the Christian’s responsibility to steward the Earth.

The growing visibility of the church in discussions of “the environment” in the 1990's caught the attention of astute politicians who recognized that their acknowledgment of Christian teachings could provide a powerful link to the value systems, and hence, the political will of the electorate. The seeds, not all bad, of the most recent “green movement” were planted and have since been warmed and watered by growing concerns about “climate change” and the growing disparity between the rich and the poor. Unlike the environmental movement of the 1960's and 70's, today’s movement has a large following in Protestant and Catholic churches who are aware of Christian responsibility toward God’s creation and toward the poor among us.

So, as we enter the second decade of the 2000's, and read of “global energy cap and trade” legislation, oil spewing in the gulf, and global economic woes, how are you doing as a “steward of the environment and in your exercise of “creation care?” Do you recycle? Is your church into recycling? Got your reusable cloth grocery bags? Drive a hybrid? Do you see connections between growth in Christian character and the discipline of rejecting materialism? Have you become more aware of the plight of the poor and the disenfranchised, and been able to turn greater compassion into appropriate action?

Today, it is not uncommon to meet sincere Christians who are learning to apply biblical teachings of “creation care” to their decision making in regard to lifestyle, community actions, economics, and political persuasion. Many of the principles that influence our attitudes and actions have been discussed here in this blog. Indeed, as this writer and other more prominent writers have emphasized (see resources below), Christian environmentalism and evangelism need not be at odds. I believe Christian environmental stewardship can provide a solid biblical foundation on which to build a life and a home that can be salt and light in a world that has lost its moorings and is adrift on the waves of moral relativism, economic materialism, and scientific naturalism.

However, our exercise of environmental stewardship can easily be hijacked by those who, for one reason or another, do not have a commitment to biblical stewardship. The quality of our corporate efforts depends upon biblically committed leadership. If I am serving in a leadership role, I must first exercise stewardship of my individual relationship with God and my accountability to Him above all. That is, I must sanctify Christ as Lord in my heart (I Peter 3:15a) each day. In the words of Oswald Chambers (My Utmost for His Highest, December 23), I must “Get alone with Jesus and either tell Him that [I] do not want sin to die out in [me]; or else tell Him that at all costs [I] want to be identified with His death.” When we surrender to God’s Spirit in the quietness of the morning, He sometimes lets us see “what we would be like if it were not for Himself; it is a justification of what He said - Without Me ye can do nothing." Here, in the morning with our Creator and Redeemer, we can evaluate our motives and our lifestyles – why we recycle, conserve energy, care about those who are poor both materially and spiritually. Then, we are ready to enter the new day and into the wider circles in relationships with our family, church, community, and government. With God’s help, we are ready to give an answer to everyone who asks [us] to give an account for the hope that is in [us], yet with gentleness and reverence (I Peter 3:15b).

The Gospel of the cross that saved us individually is the same Gospel that can keep us accountable before God in a “stewardship of righteousness” that we received under the blood of Christ’s cross. If we are to exercise lifestyle and leadership in “biblical environmental stewardship” amid the highly politicized winds and waves of “climate change,” “cap and trade”, and “environmental-social justice,” we must begin each day at the feet of the One Who created us and the Earth; and then, allowed us, in our sin, to drive the rusty, refined ore from the Earth through His hands and feet.

Lord of Heaven, and Creator of Earth, remind us daily that any righteousness (right-ness) that we possess is not our own but has been bought with a great price, the blood of Christ. Help us to exercise “stewardship of Your righteousness.” May we not speak pridefully as the Pharisee, who prayed thus to himself, God I thank You that I am not like other people [like the tax collector]. Let us rather pray like the tax collector: God be merciful to me, a sinner. May our lives in private and in the public arena be seen by You and others as covered in the righteousness of Christ. May there be an obvious and evident link between Your righteousness in us and the lifestyle and leadership we exercise before others. Help us to walk with You daily; and then, discern what is right living and use of the material, time, and opportunity that you entrust to us. Then, may we relate biblically with others and their strong passions for justice and right-ness toward the Earth and the “less fortunate” in a manner that reflects our Lord’s concern when He said, "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.” Amen.

Related Resources:
Creation Care and Christian Character
Creation Care– Doing It Our Way?

Keepers of the Earth and of Our Neighbor: “Social Justice” by the Informed, Teachable, and Just

In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping lead into the pack, but with more excitement than accuracy: how to aim a steep downhill shot is always confusing. When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down, and a pup was dragging a leg into the impassable slide-rocks.

We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes– something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger itch; I thought because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunter’s paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view(1).

In this excerpt of his essay, “Thinking Like a Mountain”, Aldo Leopold articulates so well one of the convicting challenges that earned him the reputation as one of the principal environmental ethicists of the 20th century. But what made Leopold a giant in conservation biology was not his aim with a rifle. Rather, it was his “conversion” from an arrogant young proponent of the eradication of predators for the sake of better hunting grounds to a person who recognized that ecosystems must be viewed holistically and their complex food chains studied carefully as a basis for making good management decisions.

The “converted” Leopold saw the natural order as a “world of wounds” and recognized that humans needed more than an intellectual awareness to address the wounds. In His “The Land Ethic” Leopold (1) states: To sum up: a system of conservation based solely on economic self-interest is hopelessly lopsided. (p. 214). No important change in ethics was ever accomplished without an internal change in our intellectual emphasis, loyalties, affections, and convictions (p. 209). Although it appears that Leopold did not realize the scriptural foundation needed to fully develop his prescription for conservation, he recognized three important principles– (a) that the “natural order” (cosmos or creation) is a very complex and objective reality; (b) that the cosmos is worthy of our effort to understand it and conserve it; and, (c) that humans tend toward selfish, short-sighted behaviors which must be countered by moral and ethical restraint if we are to acquire the necessary awareness, “loyalties, affections, and convictions” for conservation to occur.

Across the ocean and several decades later, in the turbulent era of Vietnam and the Irish freedom fighters, John Lennon wrote the song, “Imagine” in which he invites us to

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Like Aldo Leopold, John Lennon saw a “world of wounds” but apparently did not understand the world (cosmos), the human responsibility to humbly decipher its workings, or the need for human moral and ethical restraints. Instead, Lennon “imagines” a world without political boundaries, one without anything worth dying (or living?) for, and without religion, and yet one that somehow has peace, no individual ownership (possessions), and a “brotherhood of man.” Like young Leopold who envisioned a “hunter’s paradise” by simply eliminating predators from the food chain, Lennon’s solutions are hopelessly naive and inconsistent with reality.

Interestingly, the official John Lennon website outlines the efforts now led by his wife, artist/ musician Yoko Ono Lennon, in cooperation with nonprofit organizations to fight hunger and poverty. I “cannot imagine” how a world without national governance, private ownership, and without moral and ethical restraints could usher in a peaceful brotherhood of man. Jay Richards, in Money, Greed, and God (Harper One) (2) refers to Lennon’s philosophy and asks, “Don’t Lennon’s words express the same sentimental delusions that inspired communism in the first place (p. 21)?”

We read in Genesis 2, following a summary of God’s creation of the cosmos, an account of the fundamental responsibility of man to keep the garden (v. 15). To accomplish this stewardship of creation, Adam was encouraged to study the created order so that he could understand his relationship to each creature and give names to them (v. 19-20). As a result of his understanding, Adam would be prepared to keep the garden and would also understand his need of relationship with one of his kind–woman (v. 21-25). Adam and Eve’s eventual disobedience of God’s command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil led to the entry of sin into the heart of mankind and into the created order. Satan’s deception in the garden was targeted at the trinity of essentials we have been highlighting in this essay. First, he misrepresented God and His created order, then he distorted the human understanding of this order, which led to the corruption of moral and ethical restraints. Therefore, as those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ, whether we wish to properly manage wildlife populations within ecosystems or work to bring relief to the poor, our approach must be based on knowledge of the created order and of the nature and spiritual need of man.

A century before John Lennon, England was, in the words of Andree Seu (3), “the worst of times. Ten percent of England’s population (3 million people) lacked the basics of food, shelter, and work. William Booth described government remedies as ‘well meaning, but more or less abortive attempts to cope with this great and appalling evil.” As Seu recounts, “Booth devised a strategy that was based on seven foundational principles. The first was that any plan for helping poor people must deal with the heart of man. Another was that the help must not cause further harm.” Booth was concerned that “Mere charity...while relieving the pinch of hunger, demoralizes the recipient...”

Booth founded the Salvation Army based on a proper recognition of the nature of man. He saw human beings as creatures needing foremost the reconciliation provided through faith in the blood of Christ. Booth also recognized that humans were created to participate as responsible stewards in the created order and from this participation they gain meaning, purpose, and dignity. According to Seu, “Booth and his helpers established institutions to rescue and provide immediate necessities and temporary employment and to teach godly principles of living. All of this was done in the midst of a raging public debate over political theories of welfare, and opposition from noise-makers of the “social justice” crowd who thought that charity was the government’s business.”

I believe there are lessons for us today in this brief account of such diverse characters as Aldo Leopold, John Lennon, and William Booth. From Leopold we learn the importance of understanding and respecting the complexity of the created order. Where removal of predators as enemies of hunters or ranchers had led to overpopulation of deer and elk, human efforts to save these populations from starvation and disease due to lack of food had little success. More recently, efforts to reintroduce predators reflects a maturing understanding of the complexity of ecosystems.

The best-laid plans of man often have, in a matter of speaking, a demoralizing effect on wildlife. For example, wild creatures such as the black bear that are allowed to become dependent upon human foods or scraps loose their independence and majesty and are, in a matter of speaking, demoralized. In a slightly different sense, the same can happen to well meaning attempts to help human beings. William Booth’s philosophy of providing a “hand up” rather than a “hand out” demonstrates the importance of providing “help” that affirms the dignity and responsibility of human personhood. Where John Lennon would have us “imagine” a world of peace, equality, and brotherhood, William Booth’s approach offers a practical and informed approach with proven results.

In these times of economic hardship, poverty, and political debate about how best to address the “world of wounds” both ecologically and socially, I believe more than ever, we must heed the Scriptures that teach us to honor our Creator and give thanks (Romans 1: 21). From this foundation and the inspiration of God’s Spirit within, we can be godly keepers of the creation through the understanding gained by “good science.” We can also be faithful keepers of “our neighbor” if we are guided by a biblical understanding of the nature of human personhood and an awareness that individual reconciliation with God through Christ is fundamental and foremost to any other acts of social responsibility toward our neighbor.
--------
1 Leopold, A. 1949. The Land Ethic. In A Sand County Almanac, pp. 201-214. London: Oxford U. Press.
2 Richards, Jay. 2009. Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem. HarperOne. New York, NY.
3 Seu, Andree. 2010. A profile in social justice. WORLD Magazine. May 22, page 79.

Earth Day – Keeping the Earth with an Eternal Perspective

This month marked the 40th annual Earth Day, first scheduled in April, 1970. On that first Earth Day, my wife and I had just celebrated the birth of our son, Bradley. The Earth Day emphasis that year challenged me as a young father to consider ways to keep the beautiful “blue jewel in space” from slipping into an inhospitable future; and instead, provide a planet on which our son and his generation could thrive. On the 40th Earth Day, I was privileged to participate in planting a tree in memory of a friend.

As the annual Earth Day has come and gone each year since 1970, efforts toward “Earthkeeping” or creation care have been increasingly bolstered by a better developed science of ecology and a better developed theology of Christian environmental stewardship. Evangelical Christians, for over a decade following the first Earth Day, were suspicious of those who called for the church to take the lead in caring for the Earth. Indeed, many such as Lynn White, Jr. went so far as to blame the Judeo-Christian teachings and practice for the environmental crisis.

Today, increasing numbers of evangelical Christians are learning to integrate their worship with their daily walk with acts of love, care, and benevolence toward their neighbor and on behalf of God’s creation in accordance with the dominion stewardship responsibility. To illustrate this concept, let’s return to my earlier mention of planting tree in memory of a friend on Earth Day.

For approximately 15 years until his death in 2009, it was my privilege to know Dr. Michael Horton, a beloved veterinarian and conservationist in Fairborn, OH. His passion was to restore and enrich landscapes for the benefit of soil, water, and creature conservation. To accomplish this goal, Dr. Horton motivated many volunteers over the years, including student groups from Cedarville University, other local universities, and various citizen organizations. to plant trees suited for landscapes needing restoration – wetlands, hillsides, disturbed areas, an such like. This Spring, Fairborn and surrounding communities enjoy the budding and blooming of thousands of trees due to his efforts.

And so, on this Earth Day, we gathered on the Cedarville campus with his wife, Marcia, her brother, several dear friends, and students of the Pro Terra Forma creation care organization to plant a lovely, 20-foot red oak in honor of Dr. Horton. After a brief dedication, and the shared act of shoveling soil around the tree, we gathered in a circle around the tree to offer a prayer of dedication. At that moment, I realized that we had expressed our faith at once in multiple dimensions.

First, we had connected the tree roots to a specific “place” in the soil of Earth from which water, nutrients, and anchorage would be provided so that this tree could grow mightily with its limbs lifted like arms and hands in praise toward heaven. Second, our planting effort was an act of faith in the Providence of God Who alone can cause growth of the tree through His provision of the essential components from soil and atmosphere.

The human action of planting and nurturing the tree, combined with God’s Providential supply of sunlight and water from above, makes possible a divine-human cooperative that may enable this red oak to grow into a massive specimen over the next century or more. Meanwhile, it brings joy and gladness to those who will gather beneath its branches.

Finally, as this tree grows and shades the plaque placed in memory of Michael Horton, we will be reminded not only of a dear friend, but we will recognize our smallness and finiteness. Trees remind us to “number our days” because they may live for centuries after our lives on Earth have ended. Thus, tree planting can be an unselfish act when completed with the intention of serving future generations. Furthermore, trees serve the rest of creation through absorption of carbon dioxide, pollutants, dust, damaging winds, and unwanted sounds.

Acts of creation care take on eternal significance and become acts of worship and faith when combined with a servant spirit toward our friends, neighbors, and the Earth. And with the psalmist, we can exclaim:

Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice;
Let the sea roar, and all it contains;
Let the field exult, and all that is in it.
Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy
Before the LORD, for He is coming,
For He is coming to judge the earth.
He will judge the world in righteousness
And the peoples in His faithfulness. – Psalm 96:11-13

Creation Care Consistent with God’s Economy

The winter of 2010 will be remem- bered for its prolonged coldness and deep snow cover which has provided extra challenges for humans and other creatures. Thus, at our home in a small “forest island” surrounded by agricultural landscape in southwestern Ohio, we observe a large variety of nonmigratory songbirds and other winter-active creatures who find food and shelter in our forest edges– e.g. cardinals, black-capped chickadees, downy woodpeckers, and fox squirrels.

Because of the availability of natural sources of food, I have traditionally restricted bird feeding to periods of extended snow cover and cold. Instead of a regular “food handout” at a feeder, I have chosen to develop a landscape with numerous and varied sources of winter food for wildlife. At our forest-edge location, we have many perennial herbs, a prairie plot of grasses and forbs, unharvested crop plants, and trees and shrubs that have seed-bearing fruits as sources of food for seed-eating birds and other wildlife. Squirrels have access to acorns as well as hickory nuts, walnuts, and hazelnuts. The live tree trunks of shagbark hickory, ash and oak, as well as fallen logs afford bark crevasses and coverings from which woodpeckers and other insectivores can extract morsels of food.

However, on this February day, two experiences persuaded me to provide extra feed for the birds. First, near sundown as I hiked across the crisp, deep snow of a nearby cornfield, I could feel the cold fingers of the winter air reaching inside my coat to pull heat from my body. This feeling of intense cold sensitized me to the challenge of the songbirds. So, as I hiked toward our warm house, I sensed (or imagined) a bit more urgency in the sounds of late-afternoon chirps and the fluttering of songbirds as if to make appeal to me for a “food handout.” The experience of penetrating coldness combined with the sight of delicate winter birds convinced me to provide some food for them on this day.

Just the thought of how feathered and furry, warm-blooded creatures survive the cold of winter is an invitation to wonderment. Indeed, how could I survive in isolation from the interlocking economic and industrial grids that provide heat, water, food, transportation, etc. But the Creator, being rich in wisdom and mercy has made provision for both man and the other creatures in His great “Economy.” (The capital “E” was aptly used by Wendell Berry in his Home Economics essay entitled “Two Economies”(North Point Press, 1987)). This Economy demonstrates true “creation care” as only our Creator can. The psalmist pours praise to God for His Economy when he writes:

Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And Your dominion endures throughout all generations.
The LORD sustains all who fall
And raises up all who are bowed down.
The eyes of all look to You,
And You give them their food in due time.
The LORD is righteous in all His ways
And kind in all His deeds.
The LORD is near to all who call upon Him,
To all who call upon Him in truth. – Psalm 145: 13-15; 17-18

Here we learn that God’s provision is everlasting, governed by the Righteous One Whose dominion sustains both mankind and other creatures. This Economy is much more complex than the “economy” that generates packaged bird seed and BTU’s of heat for our homes. The Creator’s provision extends to all creatures in a seamless manner:

You open Your hand
And satisfy the desire of every living thing. – Psalm 145:16

In the sciences of ecology and physiology, we are learning the intricate mechanisms of how plants and animals are equipped with molecular “clocks” that interact with the rotation of the Earth to tell the time of day and thus control daily cycles of activity and rest. These clocks also interact with changing daylength to set in motion hormonal changes that orchestrate such processes as migration and hibernation. Thus, both the inspired revelation of Scripture and the “book of creation” speak of our Creator’s provision for all creatures.

What does God teach us through His Economy of provision to every living thing in such wondrous ways? First, the Scripture teaches us that God owns creation while we are the stewards (Genesis 1:28; 2:15). As stewards, we must learn the workings of God’s Economy and humbly work within its laws and processes. In Deuteronomy 7:13 we have God’s promise to Israel that if they will reverence and obey God’s law, He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground… Throughout Scripture, God promises that He will keep those who keep His laws, including the laws governing the Sabbath for man and for the land.

In Leviticus 25: 2-7, God emphasizes that the Sabbath is not only for the benefit of mankind but also for livestock and for the wild creatures. Here, we see God’s invitation to humankind to be obedient stewards of the land. By obeying the Sabbath laws, they can serve in harmony with God’s open hands to every living thing (Psalm 145:16). God’s command which stated that your harvest's aftergrowth you shall not reap, and your grapes of untrimmed vines you shall not gather (v. 5) reveals a profound understanding of sustainable use of the land. This instruction was to conserve the soil, crops, and wildlife, a principle that we are just beginning to grasp.

In summary, any compassionate effort on my part to care for the creatures at our forest edge must respect the laws of God’s Economy as taught in Scripture and revealed in creation through proper study of the science of ecology. Our example of bird-feeding serves as a metaphor for our participation in the larger Economy of God. Simply filling a birdfeeder while ignoring the need to restore and protect wildlife habitats for shelter and nesting is not “creation care” either biblically or scientifically. On the other hand, planting patches of seed-bearing plants for wildlife in winter, or allowing some crop plants to stand unharvested will provide food, habitat, and shelter for many bird species as well as allow natural predation upon the songbirds without making the birds “sitting ducks” at a birdfeeder.

As Christian stewards we are called to be a caring people both toward God’s creation and toward our neighbor. In every case, “biblical care” must respect the larger Economy in which the subjects are involved. If we simply extend “handouts” to the poor and needy, or to songbirds without considering the larger context of their need, we could be doing more harm than good. Both birds and humans can become dependent and degraded when the focus of care is misplaced. Our attempts to restore both the brokenness of the creation and the brokenness of human families and communities must be guided by a humility and knowledge that recognizes the complexities of each within an Economy that runs by a larger hand than ours– the very Hand of God. May our hands offer real “care” both to our neighbor and to other creatures by approaches that are biblical and in harmony with His sustaining hands for His glory.

Websites on Care for Our Neighbors and Care of Creation:

Care of Creation – Pursuing a God-Centered Response to the Environmental Crisis
Educational Concerns for Hunger Organization (ECHO)
Establishing a Wildlife Food Plot – from The Ohio State University
Floresta – Ministry of Healing of Land and People
Flourish – Reviving Lives and Landscapes
Urban Light Ministries – Serving God by Serving Children, Families, the Hurting and Hungry in Jesus' Name
Closed Door Ministries -- Assisting a Few, to Disciple Many, to Reach Millions