Last night Naomi and Alistair and I went to see the Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth (check out the trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUiP6dqPynE). It’s been billed as “the most terrifying film of the [northern] summer” and yeah, it’s a little concerning.
Aside from being shocked about how unhealthy we’ve made the planet it got me thinking about the issue of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. Recently I’ve been praying for more rain, convinced in my Calvinism that ultimately it’s God’s sovereignty which will save us all from thirsty deaths, and it’s God’s sovereignty which led us to the position in the first instance. But Al Gore reminded me in no uncertain terms that the blame for our current situation can be placed quite squarely on human factors.
Now theologically I’m confident that I can reconcile this. For every action there is a divine and a non-divine agent, with the divine agent acting for holy and good reasons and the non-divine agent possibly acting with unholy motives (as hinted by Gen 50.20 and Acts 2.23). So our culpability in causing global warming is upheld, but God’s role in bringing it about can still be recognised without him being held guilty.
While I have applied this model to other natural phenomena, up until now I have not been particularly struck by the consequences of there being a human element in global warming. I knew that human activity was responsible for the situation, but my prayer in response to the crisis betrayed an overly theo-centric approach to the issue. The solution was to pray for God’s intervention, and to try and remember to start sorting my garbage every now and then. But the obvious human element involved in global warming has made me think that my prayers (and behaviour) should change. If I want the situation to improve, then shouldn’t repentance be a first step?
I know that by using the word ‘repentance’ it sounds as if contributing to global warming is a sin. Whether it is a sin is an interesting and important question, but this is not an avenue I wish to explore fully in this post. However, that global warming is our fault and that I want God to intervene suggests that some sort of repentance is called for, be it a moral repentance or merely a change from what is essentially a neutral behaviour. Either way, I do think that a recognition of our responsibility should be incorporated into our heavenly petitions. If God is not the only agent, then why have I prayed as if he is???
Does anyone have any clearer thoughts on this?
Is global warming a sin?
Is it possible to ‘repent’ from something which is not a sin? If so, how is this different to just ‘changing your mind’?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Hey Marty: love to have some of your comments on my YOU book if you have a moment!
YOU
Marty, I'd be curious to know how any Christian who thinks that humanity has significantly contributed to global warming (and mass extinctions, and pollution, and needless deforestations, and so on) would not think that these patterns of human selfishness and shortsightedness were not sinful. Is it because we can only conceive of sins as being against God or humanity, but these seem to be wrongs against creation? While I think maybe we shouldn't de-moralise creation too quickly (See Rom 8.18ff), environmental irresponsibility is an offense against future generations who will have to deal with our mess, and an offense against the God who placed humanity on the earth to 'serve the soil' (Gen 2.15).
By the way, I really appreciated your insights about prayer and sovereignty here.
Oops - double negative in my first (confusingly long) sentence. In short, how does any Christian think it is not a sin to plunder the earth for short term gain?
MPJ: I'll have a look for YOU (ha ha)
Byron: I guess the reason I feel hesitant to automatically associate global warming with sin is beacuse our contribution to the crisis is so embedded in how we live; its complex, so I am not wanting to mark it with a simple stamp of "sin". If I drive my car, its contributing to GW. Does that make driving my car a sin? This doesn't seem right. Is driving my car when there are other options a sin? How about driving my car with fewer that two occupants? I need to drive my car to get to church. Was it an offence to God to choose a church so far from public transport? It's complex, and I guess contributing to GW will sometimes be offensive to God and sometimes not. I'm not yet sure what principles to apply to sort it all out.
Marty, I think this is where some of our thinking about sin breaks down. Like you ask, is chosing to drive on any particular occasion a sin? I think maybe the challenge is to broaden our concept of sin from a reductionist 'individual acts that grieve God'. Part of what it means to live with the ongoing presence of sin is, it seems, to live embedded in a society and in associations which do things that grieve God. I take it, that in some way, our whole civilisation grieves God. That calls for repentance, and not so much a complex about every time I drive a car, but the realisation that every time I choose not to drive, I make a choice for the better.
Marty,
If you view sin as the indidvidual act/s then surely you will get caught in a reductionistic spiral. However, could sin not also be viewed as particiaption in humankind. So, as we are 'in Adam' (Rom 5) as individuals we should see ourselves as part of humankind, and share in the acceptance that in 'gross' terms humanity is fallen. Yes, some have been restored, but the 'now and not yet' aspect means that while those who have been restored are seated with Christ in heaven, do they not also still participate in humanity's rebellion against God. Is not an outworking of this the continual (and often selfish) destruction of creation? For thos who have been restored, they must continue to shine like stars. They must live as though they are in heaven but recognise they are still constrained by having the flesh of the first Adam.
Shouldn't we also ask God for forgiveness on behalf of our humanity, that He would have mercy on the way we (humanity) has treated His creation.
Jeltzz and anon made my point - sin is bigger than any individual and bigger than any individual act. BTW I wouldn't call GW a sin; it's humanity's selfishness and deliberate shortsightedness and greed, etc, that are the problem. GW is a consequence of living like we own the place.
Thanks guys. It's very important not to think about sin as individual acts, we don't want to end up with an account of morality which is cast in purely phenomenalistic terms.
But of course it's also a false move to not to move back from the general to the particular. If I may use an analogy: Disrespecting your spouse does not mean that you're not married, but it's important to think about how your individual actions are affecting the relationship at a particular point. The marriage is bigger than the individual action, but the individaual action does form part of the marriage dynamic.
Perhaps the same can be said of sin within the divine human marriage?
Sorry, need to pay closer attention to comments before I post them, typo's galore!!!
Line 1 paragraph 2 should read:
But of course it's also a false move to not move back from the general to the particular.
Yes, thinking about discrete actions is an important moment in our deliberative process, but I wonder whether this task isn't subordinated to discerning our basic attitude/character* (going with virtue ethics for a little while here, as it suits my purposes...). Are we the kind of people who receive God's gifts thankfully and express our hope in the resurrection through the respect we show to the earth and physicality?
* Character can't be reduced to attitudes, but is a nexus of attitudinal and behavioural patterns.
I saw "The Devil Wears Prada" on the weekend. It's easier to work out where the evil lies in that one :) ...
I had things to say but think they have been said already in the other ten comments (agree that human greed and laziness are the sins behind the GW). I recently acquired "Pollution and the Death of Man" by Francis Schaeffer, which is apparently a good treatment of this issue, I just haven't read it yet! But I will do so soon ...
Here's an addendum to my own rather silly comment. But, in my thinking about wildlife conservation in the past it seemed to me that of course God didn't make such creatures as the pig-footed bandicoot for us to just exterminate them. But, we also know the world is under a curse, and in "bondage to decay" (Romans 8:21), so, it's almost no surprise to Christians that the world is falling apart and species are going extinct (we have the inside information) ... but that is not at all to reduce our responsibility for it (same sort of deal as Pharoah, Judas etc). I wrote an article for hippocampus extensions on this (still waiting for Karen B. to send it live) but one thing I didn't delve into, and maybe you theological brains can enlighten me, is the workings/nature of the link between humans and their sin and creation ie why the creation was cursed because we sinned, and is waiting for us to be redeemed so it can "obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God" - I had to leave it because I felt like I opened Pandora's box. Does that make any sense?
No such thing as a silly comment!
Romans seems to speak of sin not as a collection of rebellious actions but as a kind of cosmic force which enslaves all of creation. As a force with its own agenda it tempts us and entices us to side with it, and it has also captured creation. So this is how sin is involved with the decay which we see all around us. As to how human rebellion opened the way for sin to grip the rest of the world, that's an interesting question. Maybe God let sin have its way with the earth as part of his punishment against humanity...is this what is meant by Gen 3.17-19? Romans 8.20-21 I've always found to be tricky. It gives a reason for creation's futility, but the reason is not explicitly linked to Adam's sin (unless the "him" in v20 is a reference to Adam and not God). The reason is so that the creation can "obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God", ie so that it can be transformed, renewed and improved upon just like we Christians are going to be. Why futility has to happen before this occurs is a good question. Perhaps so that sin could reach its full height in the creation before God finally deals with it. This seems to be the logic of why sin was intensified within humanity (Rom 5.20, 7.13, 8.3), so maybe there is a corresponding intensification in the created realm? Any other takers?
Thanks for the response – and apologies for sabotaging your blog with my own question. It does seem to me quite likely that creation was cursed as a punishment for humanity’s sin, from Gen 3:17-19. We ruined the order of things and are now no longer able to fulfil Gen 1:28 all that well – which seems, from Gen 1:26ff, to be part of what it meant to be made in the image of God (or maybe I shouldn’t make the connection like that between 1:26a and 26b). But that idea only serves to strengthen/heighten the connection between our sin and the state of the planet don’t you think? And so makes our careless attitude today to this creation that we were to have "dominion" over (if that is a kingly care and responsibility) and even gave names to (Gen 2:19) indeed just yet more evidence of that very original sin.
What you say re Romans 8 is interesting – yes, perhaps it is show God’s glory all the more – one day ... Will keep thinking on that.
I just tried to kayak this afternoon in Canada Bay in a friend’s very long, skinny kayak. I am sticking with that notion that the sea is the place of chaos ... there can be seas in heaven, just make my kayak half as long and twice as wide.
Marty - Keen to hear if Chris Wright's lecture has helped your thinking here at all.
- Ben
One more thing ... before I step down off my soap box ... didn’t quite make my point in that last one I don’t think. I was more trying to say that the fact that creation was cursed because of our sin, or in punishment for our sin, seems to only heighten the relationship between US and the physical world, rather than our sin and the physical world. That is, we seem to be, as humans, inextricably linked to this creation, whether we actually like that or not. And it is puzzling that many people, and most especially Christians, seem to view creation as almost irrelevant somehow (and life in big cities possibly lets us get away with that notion). God obviously thought it was bad news for us, effective as a punishment, that the world was now doomed to decay, so it’s odd that we don’t necessarily see it that way. Apparently one of the top ten responses given to the Wilderness Society, when they are campaigning, is "no thanks I’m a Christian" – and I am not for a moment suggesting that we need to be donating money to the Wilderness Society, but I can’t fathom that a Christian thinks that is a justifiable response ... Goodnight!
Post a Comment