Ch. 8: Where is there hope?

This is the shortest and final chapter in the book For the Beauty of the Earth by Steven Bouma-Prediger. It is about hope and where we should put our hope. There are several places he lists that the world tends to put its hope in. Tales of ecological development and improvement are one example. New technology and growing awareness of the world are some others.  But although these may offer hope to some people, are these, to use Prediger’s term, “human seeds of hope,” enough?  He then uses the passage Isaiah 54 verses 1-10 to show us that there is only one real hope. That God is our redeemer and he is on our side. He will take care of us and so we need not to worry. None of the other reasons for hope should be dismissed, for they are real. But our God is a god that can do anything and everything good. So we should put our full hope in him.

Hope is not the same thing as optimism. Optimism is worldly.  Hope comes from another world and is as Prediger puts it, rooted in faith in God.   The last lines of Prediger’s book says,

“For the beauty of the Earth. May we each be so moved by love and gratitude that we bear witness to the good news of the gospel. In doing so, we will with our lives proclaim the hope that lies within us- the hope of God’s good future of shalom.”

Why worry about Galapagos Penguins and the Jack Pine? Continued

Why worry about Galapagos Penguins and the Jack Pine?

Arguments for Earth care

I am continuing the blog post that I started on Monday. Here are the next five of Prediger’s arguments.

Value Generates Duty

We should care for the Earth because certain animals, plants, and ecosystems are valuable for their own sake. There are two sets of distinctions that we should make when looking at the value of creation. The first is between instrumental value and intrinsic value. Instrumental value is when you give an object value only as much as humans get out of it. Intrinsic value is value of the object because of the benefits it gives God’s creation. Prediger uses this example: “So the worth of a maple tree as X board feet of lumber or as a location for a tree house is an example of instrumental value, while the worth of that maple tree as a habitat for cardinals or as a creature that praises God is an example of intrinsic value.” The second distinction is between subjective and objective. Subjective is when something is valuable only when people see it as valuable. Objective is when something is valuable whether or not it is valued by humans. We should see creation with an objective and intrinsic view. We have the duty to creation to help them praise and glorify God. Some argue that carrying out our duty to creation will interfere with our duty to help our neighbors. Here they have a point. Others persist that non-humans can not care so why should we care for them. Here they are wrong. God is not human and yet God cares for us and for all of creation.

　

We’re all in This Together

. Perhaps this is more of a self-interest argument. This argument says that we should work for the common good. Everything is interconnected and interdependent. When we do something that benefit’s the world, it eventually will come back to you

God Says So

This perhaps is the most straight-forward argument. We should care for the Earth because God has clearly commanded, (in the Bible,) us to. To quote Prediger himself, “It is difficult to find fault with this argument,” but he still lists some criticisms. One argues how do we know which bible passages to live by, if some of the parts of the laws of Leviticus are to be ignored, why not the ones in Genesis? Here is the answer. None of the Bible is untrue. The parts that are sited in Leviticus here, such as the kind of clothing to wear or the length of hair, were for culturally specific, and so we do not need to live by them anymore. Other parts of the Bible, however, can not be ignored

　

God’s Concerns are Our Concerns

God loves and cares for the Earth so we should to. That is a compelling reason for many Christians. But some object that God’s made us more important than the other animals, so shouldn’t we see ourselves that way to? The author answers that human beings were made in the image of God, and that we are important, but that this does not cover up our role as Earth-carers. The critic rejoins, “ Isn’t God’s primary concern that more human beings realize his love for them? Shouldn’t we put that first in our lives? The author says that this is wrong because it acts as if the Message is unconnected to the Earth.

For the Beauty of the Earth

The tenth and last argument says simply that we should care for the Earth in response to God’s blessing. When someone gives you a gift, you say thank you, but you also show how grateful you are for the gift by how well you take care of it. God has given us the Earth, and so we should take care of it.

I think some of these arguments are more persuasive than others, but there was some truth in each one, especially the last.

End of Note

Why worry about Galapagos Penguins and the Jack Pine?

Why exactly should we care for the Earth? There are many arguments as to why we should, and in the 7^th chapter of his book, Steven Bouma Prediger lists ten. I have chosen to break this chapter into 2 parts because it is a long chapter, and also because it has a lot of information in it. I will write about the second part of the chapter on Wednesday. After that I will have one more chapter, and I will probably be done with the book by the end of next week. And so, behold, the first part of the chapter, and five of the ten arguments he lists therein.
“If you breathe, thank a tree,” what a catchy phrase! That is actually his name for the first argument. It argues that it is in our self interest to take care of the Earth. We should not cut down trees because we depend on them for air. We should not let companies drain out their waste into lakes, because that is our source of water. Some people find this statement compelling, and it is. It looks at Earth-care as to our benefit. But Prediger says that “we must move beyond mere prudence.” Most people are looking for more than that in an argument.
“On loan from our children,” the second argument, states that our descendants need to inhabit this planet, so we have duties to protect it and to take care of it. Prediger thinks that this is persuasive for many people, and would compel them to watch out for the Earth.
The third statement is actually a song. “Tis a gift to be simple”. This argument argues that simply caring for the Earth is a more joyful way to live than not. But some object that most people do not live like this and doing so will separate people from culture. Still, Prediger states this is an argument to consider.
“The Poor and Oppressed Unite” is an argument that says simply that we should care for the Earth because all oppression is linked. The depression of the Earth will result in our depression. We need to care for the Earth and for other forms of oppression. But some rightly, (at least in my opinion,) object, it takes so much time to focus on everything, wouldn’t it just be better to focus on one thing?

I think these are all good arguments and worthy of consideration.
　

Virtues and Vices and My Thoughts on Wisdom

The next chapter in my science book is called “What Kind of People Ought we to Be?” In it the author lists many virtues that can be found in those who try to prevent the ecological crisis. For instance, respect, self-restraint, honesty, hope, patience, etc, etc. For each of the virtues, he attempts to explain and to name the vices of each. For respect, conceit. For honesty, deception. For hope, despair. He states that virtues have vices, usually two that fit into different categories. Frugality is another virtue, and with it, its vices, greediness and stinginess. Frugality is advisable, and indeed necessary in some conditions, when faced with a limited supply of nutrients. Greediness is a deficiency of that virtue, it is the total opposite, it lacks frugality. Stinginess is an excess of that virtue, it is to much. Other virtues, such as wisdom, do not have two categories of vices. There is a deficiency, (lacking wisdom, having foolishness,) but there is no access. You can not have too much of wisdom. That is what Prediger states, at least.
         But I have a question. Can one have too much wisdom in the sense that one is always flaunting it at others? Or would that be considered foolish and a deficiency? In J. I. Packer’s book, Concise Theology, he says that “Wisdom in scripture means choosing the best and noblest end at which to aim, along with the most appropriate and effective means to it.” God clearly has a lot of wisdom, and there is also wisdom in the scriptures. Is the wisdom that Packer speaks of a different kind of wisdom than Prediger’s? Is the word END the best word to use in the definition of wisdom, for it seems to me that Prediger is speaking of a kind of wisdom that is to enhance, “the beauty of the Earth”, in a way signaling that what we do now is going to effect the Earth in the long run. He is not speaking of an end to the Earth. Those are my thoughts of the day.

End of Note

How should We think of the Earth?

This next chapter in my science book, (For the Beauty of the Earth, by Steven Bouma-Prediger) is the 5^th out of eight. It is called How should We Think of The Earth? It begins by saying that "how we should think of the Earth" really means how  should we think of the Earth and God in relation to the Earth. How we should think of animals and nature in relation to the Earth. In this chapter he wants to prove that there are many ways to think about this. Here are some of the things we need to think about when we think about those things:

Image bearers,

Sin and Salvation,

The doctrine of the Trinity,

the Presence and power of the Spirit,

All these are ways to look at the world, and some of the concepts of looking at it And those are just some. Prediger explains the concepts of them. For instance, when stating the philosophy of Image Bearers, he says that we are made in God’s image. We have responsibility to care for the creation. We are all connected, not just with ourselves, but with all creation.
When he explains the doctrine of the Trinity, he explains that the Trinity is 3 persons, all with the same divine being, (they are God,) but are a different person and nature in relation to each other. (The Father
would not be the Father without the Son and the Holy spirit. etc. etc.)
In the second part of the chapter, he addresses the ways that we look at how to care for the Earth. He gives reasons why and why not these are true. For instance, one of the ethics he lists is Wise use. That is the concept of using resources wisely and sparingly because of a lack of never ending supply. (ex.) water) Prediger thinks this is inadequate, however, because it sees in creation only as much value as it is to be useful to humans. We must look at God’s creation with respect and love it and take care of it, simply because it is the work of God. I think I agree with Prediger and I think he makes a good point.
I can connect all this with Theology, because this is all about theology! I wonder how people back in the middle ages, (where I am reading in history,) though of Global warming. Did they try to conserve too? Maybe they did try to conserve food, because many of the people were poor. I will have to look that up.

‘Global Warming in the Middle Ages”

(ha, ha, ha,)