Read Your Bible, A Continuing Series
Posted by
Kevin
UPDATED by tgirsch below.
Far too many people spew about what Christianity is or is not without appearing to have actually read the Bible or any o the commentaries on its translations. As a public service, we here at Lean Left will attempt to educate these poor souls. A brief FAQ:
- What qualifies you to do this? Believe it or not, tgirsch was a theology student. KTK is an ethicist, and thus has a deep understanding of Christina morals and ethics and the foundation of those morals and ethics. I have no qualifications aside from having read the thing. Which, really, is the point: this is mainly going to deal with statements about the meaning of Christianity that can only have come form someone who has not actually read the whole thing or thought much about what he/she was reading.
- Isn’t this a bit arrogant? I am sorry, did you notice this was a blog? Besides, the entire text of the Bible, numerous commentaries and its translation history/controversies are all available in English. This isn’t some esoteric branch of human knowledge, like rocket science, brain surgery, or Kremlinology.
- Why should I listen to your opinions when scholars, ministers, etc have studied these things for years? The argument is all that matters — if any of the arguments in this series are wrong, then it should be easy to find learned commentary to refute them.
Onto our first example, a relatively easy one, Mark Steyn. All emphasis mine:
“No,” agreed Bishop Kate. “It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.”
Now, that may or may not be a great idea, but it’s nothing to do with Christianity, only for eco-cultists like Al Gore.
The bolded statement is either a bald-faced lie or born of such deep ignorance about Christianity that it calls into question the writer’s ability to adhere to the actual tenets of the faith. Genesis gave man dominion over the environment, broadly speaking, but dominion does not have to mean exploitation. It is not hard to find commentary that treats dominion as a reasonability to stewardship of God’s creation. In fact, the Bible itself re-enforces this notion.
In Leviticus, Israel is told how to deal with the land:
1. The LORD then spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai, saying, 2. “Speak to the sons of Israel, and say to them, ‘When you come into the land which I shall give you, then the land shall have a Sabbath to the LORD. 3. ‘Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather in its crop, 4. but during the seventh year the land shall have a Sabbath rest, a Sabbath to the LORD; you shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard. 5. ‘Your harvest’s aftergrowth you shall not reap, and your grapes of untrimmed vines you shall not gather; the land shall have a sabbatical year. 6. ‘And all of you shall have the Sabbath [products] of the land for food; yourself, and your male and female slaves, and your hired man and your foreign resident, those who live as aliens with you. 7. ‘Even your cattle and the animals that are in your land shall have all its crops to eat. 8. ‘You are also to count off seven sabbaths of years for yourself, seven times seven years, so that you have the time of the seven sabbaths of years, [namely], forty-nine years. 9. ‘You shall then sound a ram’s horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all through your land. 10. ‘You shall thus consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim a release through the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, and each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family. 11. ‘You shall have the fiftieth year as a jubilee; you shall not sow, nor reap its aftergrowth, nor gather in [from] its untrimmed vines. 12. ‘For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you. You shall eat its crops out of the field.
In Isaiah, God judges those who misuse the land:
8. Woe to those who add house to house [and] join field to field, Until there is no more room, So that you have to live alone in the midst of the land! 9. In my ears the LORD of hosts [has sworn], “Surely, many houses shall become desolate, [Even] great and fine ones, without occupants. 10. “For ten acres of vineyard will yield [only] one bath [of wine], And a homer of seed will yield [but] an ephah of grain.”
Jesus himself speaks of His Father’s love for all of His creation:
26. “Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns, and [yet] your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? Mat 10:29. “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And [yet] not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
And those are just the obvious parts. Galatians commands us to treat all men kindly. Is it kind to poison the air that your neighbor breathes, to delete the fish that feeds them, to heat the plant to the point that glaciers melt and flood his country? No, anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Bible knows that God cares for all of his creation and that man’s dominion over it is a responsibility. One could argue about the relative importance of such stewardship, but no one who knows anything at all about Christianity could claim that the responsible stewardship of God’s creation — environmentalism — has “nothing to do with Christianity”. Anyone who does is a liar or an ignorant fool.
UPDATE [tgirsch]: A much more thorough scriptural case for environmentalism is given here. While many Christians (and in particular, the conservative variety) are likely to disagree with much of it, I think it’s more than sufficient to debunk Steyn’s argument that environmentalism has “nothing to do with Christianity.”
No Christian that I know is opposed to taking care of the earth. After all, we breathe the same air and drink the same water that everyone does.
Comment 11/27/2006
“Galatians commands us to treat all men kindly.”
BTW, even if you don’t believe the Bible, your purgorative adjective in your headline describing the Bible does not treat all men kindly. Many of us consider the Bible to be the Word of God, and your vulgar language in describing it does not make others want to listen to what you say.
Comment 11/27/2006
Fred
“BTW, even if you don’t believe the Bible, your purgorative adjective in your headline describing the Bible does not treat all men kindly. Many of us consider the Bible to be the Word of God, and your vulgar language in describing it does not make others want to listen to what you say.”
Good point — the intent was to indicate contempt for the statements pilloried in this series, not the Bible itself. You are right, though, the result can be read as contempt for the Book. It has been changed and I apologize.
Comment 11/27/2006
The problem with your post is that you’re interpreting that Leviticus passage the same way I would, as a admonition to leave fields fallow to replenish them. But I don’t think that is a universally accepted interpretation - it seems to me that it could be seen more as a sacrifice to the Lord, and one that is no more relevant or observed than the passage that says that a woman having her period should sacrifice two turtle doves.
And in spite of what Fred says, there is a significant scary Christian subset that shares the James Watt philosophy, that the Earth was a gift to be “used up” in order to bring on the Second Coming, and until it’s “used up”, the Second Coming won’t happen.
Comment 11/27/2006
“It has been changed and I apologize.”
Thank you.
Comment 11/27/2006
“And in spite of what Fred says, there is a significant scary Christian subset that shares the James Watt philosophy, that the Earth was a gift to be “used up” in order to bring on the Second Coming, and until it’s “used up”, the Second Coming won’t happen.”
You don’t need to spite Fred. I said I don’t know of any Christians who are opposed to taking care of the earth. How would you know which Christians I know?
Comment 11/27/2006
Why do you decontextualize a passage of covenantal law to promote an environmentalist agenda? Environmental care is not the jist of the Leviticus passage. The sabbath years (the seventh year of rest) are reminders that God provides rest for his people; furthermore, the Year of Jubilee (which is really the climax of this verse) is a proclamation of freedom from slavery, a cancellation of debts, and a rest from working in the fields. These passages do not prescribe environmentalism, but they describe God’s providential care and concern for the people of Israel.
Comment 11/27/2006
Dan
Among those other things, it also shows that God is concerned with the proper care of his creation (some of the Jubilee laws are basically crop rotation rules) And, I note, that you have no comments on the other verses.
Comment 11/27/2006
Kevin,
I’m sorry, but I feel that if I critiqued all of your biblical examples, then I would allowing for people to assume that I do not support the proper care of the environment. I was trying to avoid a reactionary response.
With that said, I think your biblical examples are horrible examples of advantageous proof-texting. You are decontextualizing the texts to fit a 21st century understanding of environmental issues. Environmental issues were non-existent in the biblical world, so we can conclude the texts you have cited are unconcerned with the environment. Instead, they are concerned with providence and judgment. The text speaks for itself in a very specific historical setting, in this case, one that is devoid of modern environmental problems. If you want to understand humankind’s relationship to creation, grab a theological dictionary of the Old Testament and go to Genesis 1.
It is none of our business to force the biblical texts to conform to our political agendas. For the sake of academic biblical studies, please avoid doing so. Thanks.
Comment 11/27/2006
Dan
Sorry, but I don’t think that argument holds up:
1)Care of the land, while lacking a ancy name and limited to what people could understand of ecology of the time, was a primary concern of Middle Eastern societies. They lived in a rough place and had to be intimate with its workings in order to survive.
2)The passages themselves deal with the proper care of the land, so it must have been a concern.
3) You are arguing that religion is irrelvant to modern life, as most concerns of the modern day were not present in biblical times.
4)The Bible is supposed to be a guide for the lives of believers and in no place does the text of the Bible claim that it is meant as a guide for the lives of believers only in that specific time and place, and in several places clearly implies otherwise. Believers must take its lessons and apply them to their lives — that is what it is for.
Now, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the Bible and the religion that depends upon it is not up to that task becasue it was written in the context of a specific time and place and as such does not unniversalize well. But that’s an argument that doesn’t have much to do with this post: believers do think the Bible unniversalizes, and they dotry to lead their lives based on its meaning, and Mark Steyn did make a claim about what the Bible says that is simply unsupportable when reading the Bible in the context of belief in its abality to act as a guide to the lives of believers.
Comment 11/27/2006
Kevin:
1) Did I say anything contradictory to this point? No.
2) Alright, I will partially concede to the Leviticus passage. However, the Sabbath rest for the land is more importantly “a Sabbath to the LORD” (v. 4). It is not only a Sabbath for the land, but a Sabbath for the workers of the land. It is entirely a year of rest, for the land and workers alike. More importantly, environmental concerns do not take precidence over God’s providential care, because God promises that the land will still provide.
I will not concede the Isaiah passage. Read Isaiah 5, it has nothing to do with environmental care. It is a judgement on the people of Israel… that’s it.
I will also not concede your citation of Christ’s words for they are entirely about the providential care of humanity.
3) Where did I say this? By acknowledging that there is a historical understanding that influences my hermeneutical method?
4) You sound like Fred. I would wager that he would say the same thing you just did. No, I don’t think the Bible is a guide for living a good, happy life. That is an incredibly law heavy statement. The law is never content to be a guide, it will always usurp the place of Christ. I don’t try to live a good life based on biblical principles of the law: “It is for freedom that Christ set us free, stand firm, then and do not be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Gal 5:1), and “For we know that the old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with” (Rom 6:6).
Soap box done.
Comment 11/27/2006
Dan
1)Yep: “Environmental issues were non-existent in the biblical world” If that is not what you meant to say, then feel free to clarify, but the words you wrote clearly mean that care of the land i.e environmentalism realted issues wer ein existance at the time the Bible was written.
2) No argument on the relavtive importance of Leviticus, only on the fact that that is not the entirety of the meaning of the passage.
As for Isiah, the quoted passage deals with one of the things they did wrong. I fail to see your objection. God is judging the Israelites in part for their poor use of the land.
And you are flat wrong about Christs words. They are clearly about God’s love for all of his creation. I cannot even begin to see how you can argue otherwise. I mean that literally - -usually I can parse out opposing arguments, even if I think they are wrong, but I really don’t see how you can read those passages in any way other than they way I laid out.
3)No, by stating that: “Environmental issues were non-existent in the biblical world, so we can conclude the texts you have cited are unconcerned with the environment.” if that is true for environmentalism, then it is true for every single issue that moderns deal with that the Biblical Israelis did not.
4)Yeah, no, sorry. When God tells you to do things in order to obey his will, you cannot get out doing them just becasue God also sacraficed Christ to atone for our mankinds sins. Especially since Jesus Christ himself left you instructions. We are getting waaaaay off topic here, but that is a rationalization for not listening to the Word of God. The fact that you will fail to one degree or another to live up to Jesus’ expectations for your behavior dopes not excuse you from the obligation to try.
Soap box done
Comment 11/27/2006
4) You sound like Fred. I would wager that he would say the same thing you just did.
Yikes! How did I become part of the discussion? I don’t need a spokeman. I can speak for myself.
Comment 11/27/2006
Kevin:
1. Never mind the fact that the statement you quote was predicated by “You are decontextualizing the texts to fit a 21st century understanding of environmental issues.” There is obviously context (hey, a theme!) to the following statements.
2. I have an objection over Isaiah because you are misrepresenting the text. God’s judgement is not tied to humankind’s relationship to creation, it is tied to humankind’s relationship with God.
As for Christ’s Words:
Matthew 6:25-27: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?”
Never mind the fact that you kinda skipped over the “Are you not much more valuable than they…
Matthew 10:26-30: “So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.”
Bam. There is again. Providence.
3. Thanks for reminding me that global warming was indeed an issue during biblical times. I suppose dependence on foreign oil was as well.
Did I come across as saying that there was no environment to take care of in biblical times? I don’t think I did… maybe I should have been more careful to separate my statement.
4. Honestly, you sound like the conservative nut-jobs that are made fun of around here. I hear the same things from fundamentalists time and time again, and you are echoing their sentiments. Obedience is part of the new nature that comes from faith, it is not tied to the “old-self” that is referred to over and over and over again. That part is dead, remember? (Rom 6:6)
Comment 11/27/2006
Dan, you are just digging yourself deeper, mate.
1) This didn’t make any sense until I got to number three: “Thanks for reminding me that global warming was indeed an issue during biblical times. I suppose dependence on foreign oil was as well.” The only way this makes sense is that you think that environmentalism is somehow only about those issues becasue those issues happen to be the primary modern enviornmental concerns. Putting aside the fact that this is wrong by definition, we are now back to the notion that the Bible is uselss to modern people. Since, by definition, modern problems are different than Biblical problems, and since you insist that the Bible has nothing to say about modern problems, Christianity in your view is defined as nothiong more than “Worship God” and the Bible has no other message. Under your view, since the Bible cannot be used as a guide to modern issues, when jesus instructs you to love your neighbor as yourself, you must do so in exactly the same manner that ancient Israelites did — whatever that may be. You cannot, for example, argue that its bad to let global warming melt the ice bergs becasue it will kill millions of your Bagledeshi neighbors because golbal wamring wa snot an ancient problem. The Bible can provide no clue to the ethics of stem cell research, becasue there was no ancient concern.
That is silly, so I know you don’t mean that — but I frnakly cannot piece together any other argument from your statements.
2) Isiah: “God’s judgement is not tied to humankind’s relationship to creation, it is tied to humankind’s relationship with God.” Yes, and God is pissed, in part, becasue mankind violated his trust by being bad stewards over his creation. The text is clear and it in no way contradicts your point. This is not an either or situation.
Same with Mathew — Jesus is using God’s love of his creation to make a point aabout God’s love of his masterpiece — Man. That in no way invalidates the text’s plain description of God’s love for his other creations. Again, this is not an either or situation.
3)see number one above
4) How — you say the Bible is not a guide to living, in part by quoting statements form the Bible about the value of the Crucifixtion. How can I read that as anything other than a rejection of the clear commands about behvior from God and Jesus contained in that same Bible? So state it clear: are you or are you not required to follow the rules of behvior put down in the Bible by Jesus and by God? And if you are, then how can you possibly argue that the Bible is not, among other things, a guide for Christian behavior?
Comment 11/27/2006
Kevin
1. First of all, I’m not talking about environmentalism. I’m talking about your exegesis of you cited passages. You are adding an environmentalist message to passages where there isn’t any. That’s my beef! You are de-contextualizing the the meaning of the text and adding on a 21st century understanding of environmentalism to them. That understanding is just not there.
Second… what? How can you infer that I think global warming and dependency on foreign oil are the only environmental issues? Because I was being tongue in cheek? Where did you get this from?
Third… huh? You kind of have a melting pot of issues there and I don’t know how to address the hodge-podgeness of your post. It seems to me that you are inferring things that aren’t included in my posts. Please clarify the first point…
2. There is nothing about preservation, restoration, conservation of natural resources or the improvement of the natural environment in any of the texts you citing. If this is not the definition of environmentalism, please tell me what definition you are working with so we can come to an understanding.
3. Done.
4. Do we make peace with God by what we do, or are we at peace with God because of Christ? If we are at peace with God through what we do, then Paul’s words in Romans 3:23 are worthless: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Then whatever Christ’s death and resurrection would be for is wholly worthless. Futhermore Christ, then, didn’t redeem the whole person, only the part that couldn’t redeem itself. But this is not a biblical principle. “But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us,” (Rom 5:8). The whole person as a sinner has been redeemed. Our behavior isn’t recompense for our sinfulness. Does this mean that we continue in sin? Hell no. We died to that sinfulness when we were baptized into Christ (Rom 6:1-4, Gal 3:23-4:1). It is no longer “what we have to do”, but what we were set free to do (Gal 5:1 ff), we are free to serve God and to serve our neighbor. That is the obedience that is from faith.
man, that was preachy.
Comment 11/27/2006
Dan
“man, that was preachy”
Dude, we are arguing over the meaning of the Bible — comes with the territory
1) No, no I am not. I am pointing out that Bible passages describe God’s love of all of his creation. I don’t think thats the same thing — any more than a pro-life person using passages about the sanctity of stem cell life is using the Bible in a way that was not intended. Either the Bible is universal with a universal ethic that can be applied to all life in all time periods or it is not. I read you as saying that it is not, and, to me, that implies that the Bible has no message relevant to modern people other than “worship God”. The Bible you seem to be describing has no ethical or moral lessons. I see no difference between trying to apply Biblical ethics and morals to modern environmental problems and applying Biblical principals to the question of, say, capital punishment.
I think that you infer that modern environmental problems are a difference of kind from ancient environmental problems (which is really what I meant by my too glib comment about global warming) because you stated that the Biblical passages aren’t relevant to modern day life because the ancient Israelis did not have environmental concerns. When I pointed out that they did have to be concerned about the environment, you seemed to say that they were different than modern concerns and thus the passages had no meaning in modern debates. I don’t see why: if the differences are one of degree, then why don’t the passages have anything to say about Christian ethics and responsibilities to the environment?
2) I think this is the heart of our problem: I disagree. The passages talk about God’s love for all of creation and even list man’s failure to take care of that creation as a reason for God punishing the Israelites carry with them the clear meaning that God wishes his creation protected.
3) done
4) But how then does that obedience carry over to the modern world? If you are arguing that the Bible must be read only in terms of of its ancient context (which I believe you are saying), then how can the Bible’s commands be obeyed?
Comment 11/27/2006
Before I make my statement, let me present my bona fides.
OK, now that that is done, on to business. I find Dan’s argument more persuasive than Kevin’s. I also read Kevin’s rebuttal as extrapolating Dan’s statements beyond their intended scope. Counter-arguments based on such extrapolation are less than convincing.
I do not believe the cited Bible passages are prima facie evidence that environmentalism is a basic tenet of Christianity. I imagine one could generalize principles set forth in the Bible to illustrate how environmentalism is consistent with Christianity, but methinks demonstrating anything more specific than that will be an uphill battle.
Comment 11/27/2006
Kevin,
Long debate man… I didn’t think it would go this far. My comments generally aren’t substantial, so I kinda thought they’d be mostly ignored. Anywho…
1. I agree with you that God’s universal love is implied in the text, and that has everything to do with God’s nature. However (this was probably completely unclear now that I think about it), I am making a distinction between providence (God’s purposed action for His people) and God’s “universal care,” (i.e. God caring for his creation). This is especially true in the Matthew verses you quoted, where Jesus starts his teaching by affirming God’s universal care and then he goes beyond into God’s providential care.
Well Kevin, I understand where you are coming from when you say there is a universal ethic in the Bible… but I’m not comfortable with that language. I really try hard to separate philosophy from theology, so this is just going to be a disagreement.
I’m not saying that Israeli’s didn’t have environmental concerns. They were at the mercy of droughts, plagues and what have you; however, environmental care (as we understand it) was not a priority for ancient peoples. The environmental effects of progress and modernism weren’t felt by peoples of yore. It was just how it was.
I am also not saying that there are no modern principles within the Bible. As a classical Lutheran, I would say that the Bible is the source and norm for all doctrine and life. Hermeneutics, however, requires a lot more care than whimsically interpretting the Bible (no accusations intended or implied). It requires considering the world around the text, the world within the text, the world in front of the text and the world as the reader sees it. It’s equally as irritating to have pro-lifers make texts that aren’t “pro-life” say things that have a pro-life agenda. It’s a horrible and manipulative way to use the Bible.
Did I miss anything?
2. Then by gum, we are just gonna disagree.
3. Uh…
4. What biblical commands do we have? Christ’s death was reconcilatory, and consequently fear, love and trust in God are now possible through faith on account of Christ. God, who was the God of a people has vindicated himself in Christ and is now the God of all people.
Comment 11/27/2006
Ted:
I do not believe the cited Bible passages are prima facie evidence that environmentalism is a basic tenet of Christianity.
But in this statement, you’re setting the burden of proof higher than it needs to be, and higher than Kevin himself set it. Never mind the back-and-forth between Kevin and Dan for a moment, and look back upon the original post. Kevin objected to Steyn’s remark that environmentalism had nothing to do with Christianity. Not that it wasn’t a “basic tenet,” but that they had no relationship whatsoever. And I think Kevin has done a more than adequate job of proving that notion false.
Basically, Kevin makes two points:
1) That Genesis’ command for man to have “dominion over” creation was at least as much a caretaker role than a “ruler” role.
2) That given that understanding, the subsequently quoted verses reinforce the notion stated in #1.
Now if you accept premise 1, then I think Kevin’s argument holds. And my understanding of premise 1 is that Kevin’s understanding is essentially correct, although it’s not quite cut and dry. Man is indeed declared ruler over the animals, but there is also an understanding of responsible stewardship there. Indeed, in Gen 1, God even spells out that the grasses and leafy plants are gifts to the animals (not to man) for food. (The animals are themselves gifts to mankind as food, as are grains and fruits; well, at least not those otherwise forbidden later). And two of my four Bibles (NRSV and King James) use “dominion,” a word which would have implied both power AND stewardship responsibility in the ancient understanding. The counterargument here is that mankind is commanded to “subdue” the world, but I’m not sure whether or how the ancient understanding of that word would have differed from the modern understanding.
Anyway, I’m rambling a bit, but if Steyn is arguing that Christianity comes with no concern for the environment — and I believe that’s what he’s arguing — then I think Kevin has sufficiently proven his point wrong.
Dan:
It seems to me that you’re dancing around a bit. Rather like you’re taking a cafeteria approach concerning what parts of the Bible do and don’t apply to us in modern times. Which, actually, is what the vast majority of Christians do, but for purposes of this argument, we need to stick to what the text actually says (and, potentially, how its words may have had different meanings in times past) rather than larger eschatological debates about what applies and what doesn’t.
This, too, I believe to be wrong:
however, environmental care (as we understand it) was not a priority for ancient peoples
I think you’re frankly overstating this. I guess it depends on how you think how “they” understood it differs from how “we” understand it. I’d argue that the only two differences are in understanding of the underlying facts (ours is better), and in scope (ours is global and longer-term, whereas theirs was local and more immediate). But when you boil it right down, it still comes down to both “them” and “us” understanding that how we interact with our environment has important ramifications for our survival and well-being. (In fact, I’d argue that they probably had a better understanding of that fact than we do.)
As a classical Lutheran
Aha! A protestant! Faith and only faith matters, nothing else matters, what you do doesn’t matter as long as you believe. That explains a great deal about your point of view!
[/Recovering Catholic]
It’s a horrible and manipulative way to use the Bible.
Perhaps it’s just the cynic in me, but I think it’s about the only way the Bible is ever used any more…
But getting back to your disagreements with Kevin, it seems from the outside looking in like your objection is actually pretty easy to distill. Basically, the passages in question, to you, describe providence, God’s wishes, and God’s role in the world. Kevin takes it one step further and assumes that there is a reason God wants things that certain way. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable assumption to make, especially given his premises.
This is best illustrated by the Jubilee verses from Leviticus. Bascially, you’re operating from the assumption that Jubilee is observed “because God says so,” and/or to symbolize the seventh day of rest, and for no other reason. Kevin assumes there may be other reasons, looks at the big picture, and finds them.
Now from my (athiestic) perspective, I look for practical reasons why such commands would have been taught and made scripture, and I reckon that even in Old Testament times, people in agrarian societies knew that land could be over-farmed, thus reducing future harvest. A command from God carries more weight, especially in times of need when people concerned with their survival would otherwise be likely to want to bend the rule. But I’ll be the first to admit that this is mostly speculative.
I will agree with you that the Isaiah citation is of questionable relevance. In fact, I’ll say that anybody who claims to be able to make heads or tails of what Isaiah really means is probably full of it. (And don’t even get me started on Ezekiel). The Matthew verse is probably in between where you say it is (not at all relevant) and where Kevin says (entirely relevant). It certainly cannot be denied, based on that verse (even in context), that God cares about the whole of His creation and not just man, but that was not the central point of the verse. That said, it doesn’t have to be the central point of the verse.
In any case, I’ve updated the post to include a link to a more thorough scriptural case for environmentalism. You may or may not agree with it, but I think it clearly refutes Steyn’s argument, which is what Kevin had mainly set out to do.
Comment 11/28/2006
Ted
I am not delibertly trying to extrapolate Dan’s arguments beyond their scope — I just honestly see them as meaning what I have laid out. I also wasn’t trying to say that environmentalism was a central tenet of Christianity, only that the Bible provides evidence that obeying God’s will leads to actions consistant with environmentalism and thus Steyn is wrong.
Dan
Well, your comments have been very substantive — it wouldn’t be polite to ignore them.
1)I don’t disagree about the primary purposes of the texts in discussion. I think you have that down correctly, and I agree that the text must be looked at in a manner similar to the one you detail. All I am trying to say is that those texts contain more information than just that message.
2)Then we shall agree to disagree.
3) is the age of my youngest …
4) This gets to the heart of the faith/works thing, and neither of us are going to change each others minds. But from Recovering Catholic perspective, Jesus Christ left not only His sacrafice but commands to live by that echoed and reinforced God’s commands from elswhere in the scripture: treat each other well being the basic gist. I can dig up cites if you like, but I am sure you are familiar with them. Those instructions are God’s will, and part of having faith in God is following His instructions as best you are able. Protestations of faith with the accompnaying attempts to follow God’s will are hollow, in this view, and more than hollow: they are evidence of a lack of faith. What kind of faith does one have, after all, if one doesn;t attempt to carry out God’s will?
Comment 11/28/2006
As a more general point (and how did I get dragged into this, anyway?), as I understand it, the standard Christian position, conservative or mainstream alike, is that there is no important moral or practical question that can’t be answered from a Biblical perspective. For Steyn to suggest that care of the environment “has nothing to do with Christianity” sounds like a Christian-in-name-only response from someone who thinks he can do what he wants as long as he mouths the right platitudes, but whose religion doesn’t actually affect his behavior (i.e., like a lot of religious people, really). Committed Christians across the spectrum would reject such a claim, I think; regardless of what they thought the actual Biblical position on the environment is, they would agree that there is one, and Christians-not-in-name-only are required to heed it.
That being said, and again before looking at particular points of doctrine or scripture, you have two general choices: either the Biblical position on the environment is that it doesn’t matter what you do and you have no responsibility to maintain it, or it’s the opposite of that. Feel free to work out your own conclusions, using the relevant text and doctrine, but you can’t, I think, conclude that God just doesn’t care what you do with the environment (while caring hugely whether you say “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays”).
Comment 11/28/2006
Tgirsch and Kevin, we are in basic agreement. I think you are reading more into my response than was intended. I wrote exactly what I meant and did not intend to imply anything else.
Having said that, as a non-believer, I do not accept the Bible as anything more than a collection of writings by mere mortals. Thus, I do not ascribe innate universality or timelessness to the lessons of the Bible. (I do understand that my views are non-transitive; this discussion addresses believers and their interpretation of the Bible.) In fact, any text that institutionalizes slavery is, for me, a non-starter when it comes to infallible moral authority. For the life of me I can’t understand how some people can take a “strict constructionist” approach to Bible interpretation on certain issues, and then simply ignore its almost universal acceptance of slavery. (I also understand I am off topic and do not wish to divert attention from the main thread. Just felt the need to get that off my chest.)
Comment 11/28/2006
Well, I appreciate all the comments that have been made. I really didn’t want this to be a discussion over environmentalism, just over passages Kevin cited. Honestly, I think that systematizing (doctrinalizing… what have you…) environmental responsibility can be adequately done with the opening chapters of Genesis. That’s about as far as I am going to go with this topic. Thanks for the discussion.
Comment 11/28/2006