American foreign policy — both good and bad — has always been deeply influenced by Christian theology.

Note: This is part of FPIF’s new Religion in Foreign Policy Focus. for more, visit www.fpif.org.

American foreign policy is built on a deep foundation of Christian theology. Some of the people who make our foreign policy may understand that foundation. Most probably aren’t even aware of it. But foundations are hidden underground. You can stand above them, and even take a strong stand upon them, without knowing they are there. When it comes to foreign policy, we are all influenced by theological foundations that we rarely see.

For example, few Americans have read the work of Reinhold Niebuhr, the most influential American theologian of the 20th century. Many have never even heard the name. Yet Niebuhr’s thought affects us all. In the 1930s, he launched an attack on the liberal Christianity of the Social Gospel, a movement that powerfully influenced U.S. foreign policy in the first third of the 20th century. The liberals were starry-eyed fools, Niebuhr charged, because they trusted people to be reasonable enough to resolve international conflicts peacefully. They forgot the harsh reality of original sin.

Niebuhr wrapped that traditional notion of sin in a new intellectual package and sold it successfully, not only to theologians but to the foreign policy elite. Since the 1940s, foreign policy has largely been reduced to an endless round of debates about how to apply Niebuhr’s “realism.” Policymakers who still tried to follow the Social Gospel path have been marginalized and stigmatized with the harshest epithet a Niebuhrian can hurl: “unrealistic.”

It’s a Jungle Out There

Many policymakers, like much of the public at large, have come to find a strange comfort in the world as Niebuhr described it. They see a jungle where evildoers, who are all around, must be hunted down and destroyed. Though frightening, this world can easily become the stage for simplistic dramas of good against evil. And the moral certainty of being on the side of good — the side of God — can provide a sense of security that more than makes up for the constant terror. That was not what Niebuhr had in mind. But as he found out so painfully, once you let ideas loose in the world, you can’t control what others do with them.

Niebuhr would have been pained to see what the neoconservatives have done with his ideas. Their theory starts out from his own premise: All people are born naturally selfish and impulsive. The godfather of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, was (like most of the early neocons) an intellectual — a teacher, writer, and editor — and (like many of the early neocons) a Jew. But he turned to Christian theology to describe his Niebuhrian view of human nature: “Original sin was one way of saying this, and I had no problem with that doctrine.”¹ Selfish impulses, when they get out of control, can tear society apart, he warned. To preserve social order we need a fixed moral order. We therefore need a clear sense of the absolute difference between good and bad, strict rules that tell us what is good, and powerful institutions that can get people to obey those rules.

According to this worldview, organized religion has been the most effective institution to promote moral absolutes and self-control. Religion now needs to be strengthened to stave off a rising tide of moral relativism that, along with secular humanism, is breaking down the bulwarks of social order and threatening to release a flood of selfish impulse to drown us all in chaos. A favorite neoconservative columnist, Charles Krauthammer, complains that American mass culture, dominated by skepticism and pleasure, is an “engine of social breakdown.” The best antidote would be a “self-abnegating religious revival.” Since that is not likely to happen, Krauthammer admits, the best place to recover moral discipline and will power is in foreign affairs: America must find the will to exercise its strength and become “confident enough to define international morality in its own, American terms.”²

Original Sin Goes Global

When neoconservatives apply their views to international relations, they deviate from Niebuhr’s teaching. All people may be sinners, they imply, but not all nations. They assume an (often vaguely defined) hierarchy of nations. At the bottom are the enemies of America, consistently described as chaotic, irrational monsters who are incapable of self-control and bent on provoking instability and evil for its own sake. Above them are neutral nations and then U.S. allies near the top of the pyramid. At the top is the United States, in a class by itself because its national motives are good and pure, somehow untainted by original sin.

Neoconservatives insist on this hierarchy, with its dramatic contrast between the good United States and its evil enemies, because it gives them the sense of moral clarity and certainty that they rely on to hold back the relativism they fear. They bolster their sense of certainty by reducing international affairs to simplistic myths: black-and-white tales of absolute good versus absolute evil. (Here I use the word “myth” in its religious sense of a narrative story that expresses a community’s worldview and basic values.) George W. Bush tapped into this mythic world when he said that the war on terrorism is “a monumental struggle between good and evil. But good will prevail.” The outcome is certain, according to Bush, because “we all know that this is one nation, under God.” But Americans must do their world-ordering job pretty much alone, since other nations and international institutions are too selfish to be trusted. The United States must rely primarily on military might, since the only language that the sinful evildoers understand is force.

The neoconservatives did not invent this myth. It goes back to the Puritan belief in “the new Israel” and Americans as God’s chosen people, with the special privilege and responsibility of bringing order to a sinful, chaotic world. Most Americans are still likely to see their nation as the global hero fulfilling that sacred task. Only the United States, they believe in a great leap of faith, is moved by an unselfish desire to serve the good of all humanity by spreading ordered liberty.

Throughout the Cold War era, across the political spectrum, there was no doubting the name of the threatening evil: Communism. After a decade of drift and uncertainty in the 1990s, the September 11 attacks, despite their horror, allowed the nation to breathe easier, at least in terms of the theology of foreign policy. Once again, it seemed that everyone agreed on the name of the monstrous sinners, the source of instability. Rudolph Giuliani could have been speaking for most Americans when he explained that the cultural payoff of the war on terrorism was moral stability: “The era of moral relativism…must end. Moral relativism does not have a place in this discussion.” That crusading tone of certainty gave Bush and the neoconservatives a very free hand in the early post-September 11 days, when they launched the invasion of Afghanistan. The administration then invaded Iraq with the approval of 75% of the U.S. public and nearly all the foreign policy elite.

Iraq War

The myth of U.S. moral and global supremacy - Americans as the world’s chosen people - went largely unchallenged until the U.S. venture in Iraq went sour. The myth says that the good guys are supposed to win every time, because they are good. When the myth does not get played out in reality, people start to complain. If you look at the current debate about Iraq from the standpoint of myth and theology, the complainers fall into three broad groups.

First there is the mainstream of the foreign policy elite, made up of Democrats and more moderate Republicans. They complain that the Bush administration is pursuing the right goals but using the wrong tactics. That’s because the elite still hold on to some shreds of the old Social Gospel view. They give most of the world a bit more credit for rationality; they fear the impulses of original sin a bit less. So they see military strength as one of several ways to secure America’s global hegemony. They are more willing to take a multilateral approach and use the carrot as well as the stick - to pull diplomatic and economic levers before calling out the troops.

But these differences, though they can be very important, are largely ones of degree and tactics. Across the board, members of the foreign policy establishment, even the liberal Democrats, still give a very respectful (sometimes slavish) hearing to the great theologian Niebuhr. But they apply his “realistic” view of original sin only to other nations. The liberals among the elite, too, want their sense of moral clarity and certainty reassured by seeing it played out in a global drama of good against evil. So they make a huge exception for the supposedly pure and innocent motives of their own nation, the chosen people. They believe that the U.S. has a higher moral standing, which gives us the right and duty to rule. That’s how they can justify the most ruthless policies against anyone who stands in their way.

The bipartisan elite may not value the display of American strength as an end in itself, the way neoconservatives do. They are willing to risk a short-term appearance of weakness in one place in order to bolster long-term U.S. strength everywhere else. But long-term strength (including a long-term military presence in Iraq) is still crucial, because they feel a sacred calling to enforce “stability” - their favorite code word for a single global order that protects U.S. interests - everywhere and forever.

The second group of war critics is on the right. A growing number of traditional conservatives criticize the administration and the bipartisan establishment for betraying genuine Niebuhrian “realism.” These hard-core “realists” want the United States to recognize that it too is a sinful nation, limited in its goodness as well as its resources, all too likely to overreach and eventually destroy itself if it doesn’t scale back its hubristic dream of enduring empire.

Thus the right-wing “realists” become strange bedfellows with the third group of war critics, the left-wingers, who, starting from very different principles, arrive at the same anti-imperialist conclusions. Though most of them don’t know it, what makes leftists leftist is that they still champion many of the basic values of the Social Gospel movement. They do not accept the doctrine of original sin; they don’t think people are inherently doomed to be selfish and unreasonable. They assume that the vast majority of people, if treated decently and given decent living conditions, will respond by being decent people. For the left, order and stability are not as important as human growth, creativity, and transformation. The key to a better world is not strength and dominance, but sharing and cooperation. And leftists often assume - or at least hope - that the long-term trend of history is leading to that better world, a view that is rooted in the biblical hope for redemption.

In Middle America

Leftists who are consistent extend their Social Gospel view to its logical conclusion: There are no monsters - no inherently bad people — only bad conditions. So the good guys versus bad guys myth always distorts reality. But a surprising number of leftists sacrifice logical consistency for the emotional pleasure of the traditional myth. For them, of course, the monsters are the Bush administration, the neoconservatives, sometimes the mainstream Democrats too, and always, above all, the corporate elite whose hand they see behind every gesture of U.S. imperialism.

This left-wing version of the myth does not play very well in middle America, or even on the coasts apart from a few ultra-liberal enclaves. The hardcore “realist” view may get slightly higher ratings, but not much. Most Americans still demand a heavy dose of moral idealism in their foreign policy. They want to continue believing in the myth of American innocence. They won’t give in to a full-blown Niebuhrian pessimism about human nature - at least not when it comes to American humans. And they don’t want to believe that the economic and political leaders of their nation are utterly cynical “realists,” devoid of ideals, caring only about money and power.

So the mass of the citizenry, sick and tired of losing in Iraq, swing in line behind the only critical voice they can support: the foreign policy elite. The public criticizes the administration for its inept effort in Iraq. But most citizens don’t raise any questions about the long-term goals or the theological premises underlying them.

Only when something looks broken do people think about fixing it. The last time the U.S. foreign policy system broke down was when the United States suffered defeat in Vietnam. However, after a short period of radical questioning, a powerful reaction set in, fueled by the deep and widespread need for idealism and moral certainty. The neoconservatives got control of the public conversation in the late 1970s because they recognized that need and offered a Cold War myth that satisfied it.

The same need for moral clarity arose after September 11, but it’s been bitterly betrayed by the failure in Iraq. How can we avoid a similar neoconservative reaction as we question the underpinnings of U.S. foreign policy in the years to come? And if the Iraq debacle boots the neoconservatives out of power for good, how can we use this window of opportunity to challenge the most powerful alternative view, the bipartisan establishment consensus? From the outset it won’t help to scorn the average citizen’s idealistic view of America. That’s like wishing away the Rocky Mountains. Claiming that this worldview is unrealistic would be caving in to a simplistic Niebuhrian “realism.” After all, we on the left believe in our own idealism. We are happy to hear right-wing “realists” argue that Americans are no more idealistic than anyone else. But we forget that Americans are no less idealistic either. That includes even the most powerful leaders of the nation. Rather than demonizing them and dismissing their claim to good intentions outright, we would do better to look for common values that we can all agree on and then find progressive programs that can put those values into practice.

Different Moral Certainties

Just about all Americans, from Bush and Cheney and the CEOs of Exxon and Lockheed-Martin on down, sincerely want the nation to be secure. As long as our notions of security are built on the myth of well-meaning Americans versus ever-threatening evildoers who embody original sin, we can never dispense with the evildoers. They are as necessary in U.S. foreign policy as sin is in Niebuhr’s theology. They always have to be out there threatening us, in our imaginations at least, in order for our pursuit of national security to make any sense at all.

The bipartisan consensus on U.S. foreign policy calls for us to be powerful enough to dominate them. But every step we take to dominate only antagonizes more people and makes some of them really want to harm us. As long as we keep on this self-defeating road, we are not a national security state. We are a national insecurity state. So, we need to redefine national security in a way that meets people’s need for a second value that so many of us share: moral certainty. This involves a faith in some rock-bottom kind of goodness in the world, which many Americans believe has a special home here in the United States.

There is a special kind of goodness, rooted in a special kind of theology, that does have an old and honored home here — the goodness of nonviolence. There have always been Christians who were certain that the only moral way to treat others, even enemies, is with love, not violence. They knew it because Jesus said it, right there in the Bible. In 19th-century America, the abolitionists and Thoreau turned the theology of nonviolence into a homegrown strategy for political change.

Martin Luther King, Jr. took this strategy a crucial step further. He preached that it’s the government’s role to help bring all people together in what he called “the beloved community” (something very much like what the Social Gospel called the Kingdom of God). Every government policy should promote “the mutually cooperative and voluntary venture of man to assume a semblance of responsibility for his brother [and sister]” — the responsibility to help every person fulfill their God-given potential.

In King’s words, no matter how bad a person’s behavior, “the image of God is never totally gone.” So, government must serve everyone, everywhere. No one can be written off as a monstrous evildoer, sinful beyond redemption. That was a moral certainty for King, an essential foundation of his religious faith. King knew all about moral clarity and certainty. He was willing to die for the truths he believed in so firmly. But he was not willing to kill.

A Different Narrative

With King as our guide, we could have a distinctly American foreign policy based on the conviction of absolute moral certainty we find in the Social Gospel and nonviolence traditions.. Our goal would always be to move the world one step closer to becoming a universal beloved community. We would no longer act out the myth of good versus evil. We would not demonize a bin Laden or Saddam — or a Bush or Cheney. We would recognize that when people do bad things, their actions grow out of a global network of forces that we ourselves have helped to create. King said it most eloquently: “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.”

We can never stand outside the network of mutuality, as if we were the Lone Ranger arriving on the scene to destroy an evil we played no part in creating. Just as Bush is tied to Osama, so each of us is tied to all those who do things that outrage us. We cannot simply destroy them and think that the outrages have been erased. To right the wrongs of the world, we must start by recognizing our own responsibility for helping to spawn those wrongs. Indeed, fixing our own part in the wrongs we see all over the world may be all that we can do.

But in the case of the United States in 2007, that alone would be more than a full time job for our foreign policy. We would have to, among other things:

• end the occupation that creates a breeding ground for violent jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan;
• reverse the policy of supporting authoritarian regimes in the Middle East;
• stop participating in the mad rush for power and resources in Africa, which breeds disasters like Rwanda and Darfur;
• withdraw support for the corporations and financiers who would strangle the emerging popular democracies in Latin America;
• and treat everyone as our brothers and sisters, even the leaders of North Korea and Cuba and Iran.

In short, we would have to create a new notion of “national interest” based on the moral certainty that we are all threads in a network of mutuality that is the foundation of our national as well as individual life. Since our foundation is infinite and eternal, no one can threaten to destroy it, or us. Embracing that principle as the basis of foreign policy could set us on the road to a radically new way of thinking about genuine national security.

If that’s not something all Americans can agree on, at least it’s a program that gets the debate down to our most basic assumptions. This is a democracy. If the people want a religion-laden foreign policy based on the doctrine of original sin and the myth of good against evil, it’s what we should have. But at least we should all talk about it together, openly and honestly.

Notes

1. Irving Kristol, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (New York: Free Press, 1995), p. 5.
2. Charles Krauthammer, “When to Intervene,” The New Republic, May 6, 1985, p. 10.

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. Email: chernus@colorado.edu

Sphere: Related Content

This one goes out to indigenous people all over the world.

lyrics:

We don’t serve your country
don’t serve your king
Know your custom don’t speak your tongue
White man came took everyone

We don’t serve your country
We don’t serve your king
White man listen to the songs we sing
White man came took everything

We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken

We don’t serve your country
We don’t serve your king
Know your custom don’t speak your tongue
White man came took everyone

We don’t need protection
don’t need your hand
just keep your promise on where we stand
We will listen- we’ll understand

We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken
We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken

Mining companies, pastoral companies
Uranium companies
Collected companies
Got more right than people
Got more say than people

Forty thousand years can make a difference to the state of things
The dead heart lives here

Sphere: Related Content

My response is at the bottom after other blogger’s comments:

Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement

November 24th, 2006

(By John MacArthur)

Evangelicals and the EnvironmentI do think we have a responsibility to care for the environment—we ought to care for every resource God has provided for us.

That’s illustrated in the Old Testament account where God put Israel in the Promised Land, a fertile land flowing with milk and honey. God provided them that productive land and commanded them to let the soil rest every seventh year.

You shall sow your land for six years and gather in its yield, but on the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that the needy of your people may eat; and whatever they leave the beast of the field may eat. You are to do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove (Exodus 23:10-11; cf. Leviticus 25:1-7).

God gave that command because He didn’t want them to exploit the land and extract all its life. Allowing the land to rest every seven years ensured that it rejuvenated itself and continued to provide in the future.

When the Lord gave the Israelites the Mosaic Law, He warned them if they apostatized, He would remove them from the land (Deuteronomy 28). Sadly, the children of Israel did just that and came under judgment—the Northern tribes fell to Assyria in 722 B.C., and Judah to Babylon in 605 B.C. In fact, God designated the Babylonian captivity as a seventy-year captivity to rest the land for all the Sabbath years that Israel violated (cf. Leviticus 26:33-35; 2 Chronicles 36:17–21).

So I believe we are charged to treat responsibly all the wonderful resources God has given us. But that, in fact, has very little to do with the environmental movement. The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever. But we know that isn’t in God’s plan.

The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet—it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around six thousand years or so—that’s all—and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it.

I’ve told environmentalists that if they think humanity is wrecking the planet, wait until they see what Jesus does to it. Peter says God is going to literally turn it in on itself in an atomic implosion so that the whole universe goes out of existence (2 Peter 3:7-13).

This earth was never ever intended to be a permanent planet—it is not eternal. We do not have to worry about it being around tens of thousands, or millions, of years from now because God is going to create a new heaven and a new earth. Understanding those things is important to holding in balance our freedom to use, and responsibility to maintain, the earth.

Just a footnote. Though this earth is our temporary home, do take time to enjoy God’s beauty. Take care of your yard. Stop to smell the flowers. Enjoy the forests. God placed those rich resources on this planet for our comfort and His enjoyment. Let us be thankful to Him for that.

Posted in Evangelicalism, Politics |
18 Responses to “Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement”

1.
on 24 Nov 2006 at 10:25 am Eric Zeller

Good comments. Did you see Doug Moo’s article on this subject in the most recent JETS? He had some helpful thoughts from a rather different perspective.
2.
on 24 Nov 2006 at 11:20 am donsands

Christians should care about the earth more than Non-Christians.
Nice post. Thanks.
3.
on 25 Nov 2006 at 12:42 am albert

To accuse Environmentalists of the error of being “consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever,” as if that is such a negative thing is a very disrespectful charge in my judgment.

First of all, you cannot accuse the work of respectable Environmentalists just because one has a different presupposition. Granted, probably most active Environmentalists do not believe in Christianity and a future restoration of creation, but to deny their passion and love of nature in preserving what they can is still a noble characteristic and should be very much commendable. To attack their presuppositions is for another time, but please do not attack their work in trying to preserve the Environment. Because of Environmentalists, we are enjoying God’s creation at the moment and will continue to do so in the future.

It should be Christians that take the charge of preserving the Environment, not the “Liberals” or “Secular-Progressives.” Christians have more reason to not only preserve the Environment for the benefit of generations to come, but also because God made this world and delighted in its creation and goodness. (Even if it is ruined by Sin) We must delight in what God delights in, and Christians should be the ones taking the charge for the benefit of all men, and for the glorify of God.

Lastly, this has everything to do with the Gospel. To argue that such a task deters one from the Gospel is not the point at all. And to have a disposition in caring for God’s creation is to live out the Gospel. Having a pessimistic eschatology also should not have any bearing as well. Such times will come in God’s sovereignty. That is not for us to claim as a reason to do less of a job than what the Liberals are doing.
4.
on 25 Nov 2006 at 10:12 am Shazazz

Albert,

To your comment that “you cannot accuse the work of respectable Environmentalists just because one has a different presupposition,” I fail to see anywhere in John MacArthur’s quotes where he has accused anyone. I believe JM has given a very gracious but straight-forward counterpoint to that humanistic way of thinking which front-loads earthly matters before eternal ones. It seems that JM even would meet agree with the Environmentalists half-way (just short of making the Environmentalist movement a crusade). So to say we have an accusation here ignores the considerate, articulate first couple of paragraphs by the author.

-JS
5.
on 25 Nov 2006 at 11:22 am albert

I have listened to MacArthur enough to know his attitude towards Environmentalists.
6.
on 26 Nov 2006 at 2:43 pm Jazzy Cat

The environmental movement along with the global warming movement and others are controlled and run by politically motivated far left wing anti-capitalist and in many cases anti-American extremists. It is sad to see so many Christians buy into these movements. The human causation of global warming is nothing short of a hoax. Thirty or so years ago they were warning of a coming ice age as George Will cited in an article this past summer. The recent article on discernment by Dr. MacArthur also applies to these matters as well.

W.H.
7.
on 26 Nov 2006 at 8:15 pm albert

The same could be said of Fundamental Evangelicalism in terms of its far-right, neo-conservative, extreme-capitalist, ignorant/arrogant Americans being motivated by political agendas.

Your argument does not advance your point. It simply reminds us that there is corruption in every facet of politics and religion regardless.

The point that I would try to make is that what Environmentalists are doing, in essence, is what God has intended for us to do as dominion-bearers of this earth and the “religious right” has failed miserably to contribute to it. They have only criticized it. There is nothing wrong with having such a “crusade” to save the Environment. We are trying to preserve what the Lord has created to be good and delightful to Him. To criticize such a movement with such an argument would then demand conservative christians to cease protesting pro-abortion issues if one indeed dares to be consistent.
8.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 12:55 am woostar

Albert:

Can give me one example of respectable Environmentalist?
9.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 10:07 am Jazzy Cat

Albert,
What is an extreme-capitalist? Does the calling of conservatives ignorant and arrogant advance your agenda. There is a conservative agenda that we do not try to hide. The extreme left-wing agenda attempts to conceal their motives behind global warming, environmental, animal rights, and other activists causes. All of which have a disdain for free-enterprise and capitalism.
10.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 4:17 pm a_simple_bloggtrotter

Albert,

Are you suggesting in the last paragraph of your last post that the life of a tree is the same in God’s eyes as a human soul? Or that the two are remotely equal? Indeed, this cannot be your argument( biblically), so what exactly are you trying to get across?
11.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 8:11 pm farmboy

Given that we live in a fallen world where redeemed children of God are a distinct minority, based on the evidence, what is the best way to care for the world (the environment) until it is brought to an end at God’s appointed time?

First, when a person is concerned about where his next meal is coming from or where he will sleep tonight, he is not going to be focused on cleaning up a polluted stream. Taking care of the environment is a luxury that only people in relatively wealthy economies can be concerned with. Decentralized, market-based economies do a better job of maximizing wealth creation, as opposed to centrally-planned economies. Thus, it follows that decentralized, market-based economies can better afford the luxury of concern for the environment. In this regard, note that the most polluted spots on the earth are in current or former communist nations.

Second, who has a vested interest in taking care of and preserving a particular tract of land? The owner. Thus, private property rights go a long way toward preserving the environment. A farmer takes care of his land because topsoil erosion will hurt his ability to continue to raise crops. A timber company takes care of its forest resources because it needs a continuing reliable source of timber to harvest. Private property is owned by some person or entity in particular. In contrast, public property, since it is owned by everyone, is owned by no one in particular. In economics this is referred to as the tragedy of the commons. A rancher will not over graze his private range land, allowing grass to grow to optimal height before grazing. That same rancher will behave differently when it comes to public range land. If he waits on the grass to grow, there is the risk another rancher will come along and graze his cattle first. The result is suboptimal use of the range resource.

Third, when it comes to pollution of common resources, such as the air, the theory of externalities gives us guidance based on the superiority of private property for optimal use of resources. One approach is to “internalize” the pollution externality. A second approach is to use a market based system to allocate pollution rights or permits. It is more costly to reduce pollution in some settings than in others. It follows then that allowed pollution should be allocated to those settings where it is most difficult to reduce pollution.

It is wrong to state that only members of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or other similar groups care about the environment. Private property owners also care about the environment, specifically the part of the environment that they own as private property. And, it is in those decentralized, market-based economies where private property rights exist where pollution is minimized.
12.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 8:46 pm albert

jazzy cat,

You did not understand my point. But likewise I could respond again, Does calling all Environmentalists “extreme-leftists,” “anti-capitalist,” “anti-American,” advance your agenda? I never resorted to name-calling, you did.

bloggtrotter,

What is it that you do not understand from what I’ve been saying? God created our Environment, he created us to hold dominion over these things. So therefore, the fact that we ruin our Environment is testimony of our negligence, not good stewardship of God’s creation. And the unfortunate thing is that it is the “Liberals” that are fulfilling this task, not the “Conservatives.” This is not a talk on Capital Punishment or Abortion.
13.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 9:44 pm Rob Auld

Conservatives are stupid, moronic, white males who look for any other group to hate. If McArthur can make stupid broad statements then so can I.

Rob
14.
on 28 Nov 2006 at 1:51 pm truegrit

[…] In fairly close proximity of time, I came across these two posts about the perception of how Evangelicals line up on environmental issues. The first I came upon was the “Hungarian Luddite” I didn’t give too much deep thought to it, but then came across The Pulpit Magazine’s Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement post. […]
15.
on 28 Nov 2006 at 3:37 pm Shane

I think Francis Schaeffer was the first conservative evangelical to put emphasis on ecology. Like many issues we have to be careful of throwing the baby out with the bath-water. As Christians we should be good stewards of God’s creation, yet there is such a danger of over-emphasis on it (like the old social gospel). I think JM presents a balanced view on this. There is a political party called the Green Party, who in their literature refers to the earth as “Mother earth”, which is nothing but neo-paganism. This issue reminds me of the so-called ‘animal rights’ issue. Of course, the biblical principle would be that we shouldn’t abuse animals, yet neither should we put them on par with humans. Excellent post, very relevant (in the true sense of the word!).
16.
on 10 Jan 2007 at 2:54 pm Laz

“The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet”

I agree with this statement, the earth is a temporary place. Can you imagine what would happen if one said this on CNN? The outcry and calls for one’s head would be out of this world…
17.
on 25 Apr 2007 at 3:08 pm Ashly

God gave Adam a “stewardship” responsibility. The earth belongs to God and we are tenants and should take care of God’s earth(e.g. don’t dump the motor oil down the drain). Unfortunately, some people who do not have a personal relationship with Christ, have made “environmentalism” into a religion and worship “mother earth.” Others have not cared about God’s earth or God’s creation(e.g. people) and have polluted it with smog and etc. that hurts our health and well being in their pursuit of profit.
18.
on 20 Oct 2007 at 6:31 am Scott Starr

Many believers and Christians today have an underdeveloped knowledge of proper theology and proper biblical concept. It seems that they are guided more by political ideology rather than by sound biblical teaching. When discussing the purpose for the creation and existence of mankind and/or studying the book of Genesis and the creation story people do not seem to have a clear understanding of the purpose for man or of the rest of creation that ties it all together. I have heard the point made many times that God created man to glorify Himself. This is true. Yet if we do not understand or cannot explain fully what that means- we cannot really worship effectively or witness to other people effectively.

If we say to the unbeliever or potential believer, “God just likes to be worshipped,” and do not explain more fully, the listener may well go away guffawing because it could be said that what you have just described is a psychotic egomaniac- a God that has created an entire reality just so he can have someone to give him flattery and adulation. The truth is that there is far more to the concept of worship than this. Also, when teaching doesn’t cover this point with sound and thorough explanation it sends believers out ill- equipped to answer tough questions from the world.

So what is the purpose of mankind and all life, of all creation and of worship?

There are many verses throughout the Bible that proclaim the purpose for the creation of the cosmos. Simply put, all creation was made to glorify and reveal God. God created the Earth and mankind to reveal himself throughout the universe, to share himself with and through life and to commune with and through mankind and the rest of his creation. God made man special… with a special place and purpose in creation… to tend and take care of his garden and to be holy. Most people that are familiar with Judeo-Christian tradition know the rest of the story… man rebelled. Yet God’s original purpose for man and the rest of the cosmos is still intact, in force and has been reconciled by Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:18-20 says this:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Colossians 1:15-20 says this:

The Supremacy of Christ

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Now let us clarify what worship is. Worship is not meant to be a groveling, flattering experience for man to kiss the feet of a God who needs adulation. Worship has the same purpose that man and all of the rest of creation has- that is to commune with God… to share in God’s presence… to participate with God. Worship is as much for man as for God. Worship is a gift from God for man to share in his presence and his glory, to commune and to experience holiness and be joined together in spirit and in truth.

Jesus himself, the King of all Creation (Col. 1:15-20), spoke these words to a Samaritan woman he encountered at a community well:

John 4:23-24

23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

Living a life of spirituality that is grounded in truth is worship. Worship is not supposed to be relegated to the few hours a week that we sit in a Church pew. In a sense, all life, all creation, is supposed to exist as worship.

I am always amazed at the resistance and debate that I get when I assert the Christian, people- perhaps even moreso than others, actually do have a role and responibilty to play in the maintenace of the natural world… AKA “the environment”. Too many Christians in my view, have made “the environment” something abstract… something that is “out there” separate from themselves and from God and something thus inconsequential to our walk as Christians and our concerns as men. It is true “the environment” is for mankind to be in stewardship over and for us to use. Yet, how are we to “be fruitful and multiply” if we do not acknowledge, understand and accept the full purpose God has charged us with in the Earth? Caring for the Earth and worshipfully observing our purpose ordained by God also enables us to better love our neighbors and maintain public health, to be witnesses for God’s purposes and better commune prayerfully with God.

How is it that Christians have allowed themselves to be distracted and deterred from this vital role we are meant to play by terms like “tree hugger”? Would you like to see the Church grow and like to see all those “environmental wackos” out there converted to people using their passions for enlarging the Kingdom of God? Then I think its time for the Church to rediscover this aspect of God’s intent for his people and include it as part of a Godly, balanced worldview. We are not talking about becoming environmental activists or engaging in godless naturalism here.

I have often heard it said… even by Christian people that “all of this environmental stuff is mainly a political ploy”. I actually challenge this notion at its core. I remember having this conversation with an Uncle of mine. he simply could not understand why anyone should be concerned about the environment because it will just be burned up someday. I explained to him that his own house was destined for destruction and decay as was his own physical body and asked if this was really a good excuse for not taking care of his home or his body. So you see, this concept of stewardship for our home planet, the very ground of our being, is not just political… its spiritual.

Creation itself bears witness to the glory and nurture and nature of God. The universe itself testifies to God as it contains intelligence, direction and purpose as exemplified in physical growth cycles, birth, youth, maturity and fulfillment. The universe itself testifies to God in that it has moral content… that is to say that there is a right and proper way to live in the universe. It is the task of Godly people to seek that right way to live. Thus, our relationship to the universe is not that its just like some big buffet feast merely for our consumption. Our relationship to it, according to God’s purposes as defined in the Bible, is to be that of stewardship. Every link in the food chain, every species and every part of the various ecosystems of earth has a special and specific purpose in maintianing the overall harmony and balance. so why are we humans here? It should be obvious. We are perhaps the only species capable of taking care of all of the other species and systems that God has placed in our trust.

Hence, the mandate to “be fruitful and multiply”. We simply can’t do that if we live or act irresponsibly with regards to ecology.

Part of loving our neighbors also entails not only enabling godly societies and governments but also healthy environments that have clean air and water.

Too often, Christian people let the idea that this Earth will pass away mis-lead them away from their responsibilities as stewards. They forget that as humans we are the only species on this planet that is capable of protecting the whole- and that was our assignment by God in the beginning. They forget that when we harm the earth, the balance of nature- we do violence to ourselves- to other people- because as humans we are dependant on nature, as the very ground of our being, to feed us, to provide clean water and air and a network of life that is cyclical, nuturing and sustaining to the health and well being of ALL life. Thus- it cannot be denied that nature has order, has natural law and therefore has balance, purpose and even a morality about it. Even though science tries to convince us that life is merely some big bio-chemical accident- science simply cannot come up with any explanation for the existence of purpose and/or moral order. The fact that this Earth will soon pass away in no way relieves us of the responsibility of taking care of it until God decides out time is up. Taking the “it doesn’t matter anyway” approach to the ecosystem God has gifted us with makes about as much sense as not maintaining the health of your household, your own body or the bodies of your children- because “they are just going to die someday anyways”. When we take care of our nest- we take care of everybody else as well as ourselves- is this not a form of loving your neighbor?

To understand the point I am working with here- do a serious word study on the Hebrew terms Ruach and Nephesh.

Consider also the message of a large portion of the Psalms (like Ps 136;104). These reveal that part of reverence and regard for God includes recognition of his majesty as expressed in nature. Such regard is part of holiness, worship and communion with God. We are to love and obey God, love righteousness and hate evil as in disharmony, destruction, chaos and discord. Because God (and Christ in God) is Creator of nature and the director of human history, He controls nature and historical events. Free human sinners may thwart or work against His purposes for creation for the time being, but His ultimate goal for creation and His purpose of redemption shall be achieved. The will of God shall be done on earth, in history, as it is done in Heaven. The Lord’s ultimate goal for his creation is an age of peace, the realization of the kingdom of God on earth
(Ps 46:8-11). To say God is sovereign King of the universe means that HE cannot be controlled or manipulated by man. He hears our laments and complaints but remains free to act how and when He chooses. He saves from destruction and dispenses justice. God’s sovereignty extends over the whole of creation and all the nations (Ps 22:27-28). His kingdom, across all generations, is everlasting. People do not discover God. He reveals himself to them. God pours out his spirit in all of creation and nature. It is to be respected in this light. This respect is part of a worshipful attitude towards God and necessary to any human efforts at the holiness God desires from us. To even attempt holiness we are to put our spirit, our mind, our purposes in accord with God’s intents and purposes and designs. We are to love goodness and godliness and hate even the appearance of evil.

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

13 All has been heard; the end of the matter is: Fear God [revere and worship Him, knowing that He is] and keep His commandments, for this is the whole of man [the full, original purpose of his creation, the object of God’s providence, the root of character, the foundation of all happiness, the adjustment to all inharmonious circumstances and conditions under the sun] and the whole [duty] for every man.

14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it is good or evil.

Laying aside all this high end philosophy and theology. The point I am seeking to make is simple in the most practical of terms. It really comes down to a matter of respect and gratitude. When we humans, especially believers, operate with a sense of entitlement and selfishness like spoiled children running afoul on the master’s property- we cannot enjoy a fully realized or empowered prayer life. Gratitude for every breath, every drink of water and every bite of food is the basis for what I am saying.

Consider these questions;

Who is God of this world?

Who is God of all creation, earth and all matter that it contains?

What is the difference between the concept of “the world” and the definition of all creation and earth?

Who is sovereign over the world and the systems that damage and pollute

Who is the Sovereign over the earth?

I was reminded of this as I drove this morning by a radio broadcast sermon. The sermon by John MacArthur which was otherwise a good one basically dismissed the whole subject of earth and our proper relationship to it in one swoop as “the false religion of environmentalism”. I then did a search on the subject looking for MacArthur’s thoughts on the subject. I was glad to find a little more fleshed out theology on the subject here. I have heard MacArthur touch on this subject via the radio more than once and usually he does not qualify his statements even as much as is found here. Even here, I find his reasoning to be a bit lacking. I respect Mr. MacArthur’s teaching and am quite fond of it. However on these matters I do have caveats.

I will assert again that the proper, Biblical perspective on the issue of environment is key. If we have proper biblical perspective- there is no room for “the false religion of environmentalism”. It is true that when any “ism” or any thing displaces God at the center of life- then it is idolatry. Environmentalism, militarism, democratism, republicanism, anti-abortionism, atheism, communism, humanism, etc. etc. are all then on equal terms when they displace the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the rules that of conduct that they have set forth as the apex and focus of all existence. I contend that simply dismissing the whole subject of man’s relationship to creation with blanket labels like “the false religion of environmentalism” is a false and possibly even heretical teaching as much as humanism or any other “ism”. I have laid out a pretty simple and yet complex case on this.

The point should also be made that I am in no way asserting that the sin of environmental disregard and destruction is a greater sin than say that of murder or drunkenness or sexual perversion. I am asserting that it is a sin on equal terms with other sin. It goes against God and our fellow man.

Taking the entire subject of ecology and labeling it as godless and as “the false religion of environmentalism” without qualifying it makes about as much sense to me as taking the subject of sex and calling it godless and labeling it as “the false religion of sexism” without qualification.

Just as sex has its purpose and its place in God’s design- so does man’s relationship to the “environment”. Moving outside the proper place and perspective of God’s design for sex is a sin as is doing the same with regards to environment. There are distinctions and they must be acknowledged and understood.

For more on these vital topics also visit these posts:

The Misuse of “Radah” (dominion)

A Biblical View of the Environment

A Christian View of the Environment

The Meaning of Genesis

Why Are We Here?

Project Earth: Preserving the World God Created

Quantum Freewill, the Breath and Spirit of God…

Doing Lunch With The Almighty

Poverty, Pollution and Environmental Racism

Eleven Inherent rules of Corporate Behavior

Is God Green?

Thank You For This Earth

Indigenous Mind

Sphere: Related Content

Dr. Rodney Plunket

Since this past Friday was our nation’s Independence Day, our national birthday, it seems to me particularly appropriate for us to come together and ask, “How should we, as Christians love our country; how should a people of The Book love America according to the teachings of that Book?” I have chosen three examples from the Bible which I think are relevant in teaching us how to love America. Let’s go to The Book.

Please open your Bible to Isaiah (Isa) 1.

Is. 1:1 The vision of Isaiah son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

2 Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth;

for the Lord has spoken:

I reared children and brought them up,

but they have rebelled against me.

3 The ox knows its owner,

and the donkey its master’s crib;

but Israel does not know,

my people do not understand.

Is. 1:4 Ah, sinful nation,

people laden with iniquity,

offspring who do evil,

children who deal corruptly,

who have forsaken the Lord,

who have despised the Holy One of Israel,

who are utterly estranged!

Is. 1:5 Why do you seek further beatings?

Why do you continue to rebel?

The whole head is sick,

and the whole heart faint.

6 From the sole of the foot even to the head,

there is no soundness in it,

but bruises and sores

and bleeding wounds;

they have not been drained, or bound up,

or softened with oil.

Is. 1:7 Your country lies desolate,

your cities are burned with fire;

in your very presence

aliens devour your land;

it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners.

8 And daughter Zion is left

like a booth in a vineyard,

like a shelter in a cucumber field,

like a besieged city.

9 If the Lord of hosts

had not left us a few survivors,

we would have been like Sodom,

and become like Gomorrah.

Is. 1:10 Hear the word of the Lord,

you rulers of Sodom!

Listen to the teaching of our God,

you people of Gomorrah!

11 What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?

says the Lord;

I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams

and the fat of fed beasts;

I do not delight in the blood of bulls,

or of lambs, or of goats.

Is. 1:12 When you come to appear before me,

who asked this from your hand?

Trample my courts no more;

13 bringing offerings is futile;

incense is an abomination to me.

New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation—

I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.

14 Your new moons and your appointed festivals

my soul hates;

they have become a burden to me,

I am weary of bearing them.

15 When you stretch out your hands,

I will hide my eyes from you;

even though you make many prayers,

I will not listen;

your hands are full of blood.

16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;

remove the evil of your doings

from before my eyes;

cease to do evil,

17 learn to do good;

seek justice,

I want to stop right here for just a moment. The prophet is speaking for God, and he is speaking words that clearly convey God’s white-hot anger due to the evil of the people and the leaders of the nation of Judah. But what exactly are they doing? Up to now we have had no explicit examples of what behaviors they are to change to become pleasing to God. In the next few lines God we hear of the changes that need to come. In the next few lines God expresses what the people are to start doing that they have not been doing. Hear what they are to change. Please look with me at the reminder of verse (v) 17 and then listen to the word of God in verses 18-20.

rescue the oppressed,

defend the orphan,

plead for the widow.

Is. 1:18 Come now, let us argue it out,

says the Lord:

though your sins are like scarlet,

they shall be like snow;

though they are red like crimson,

they shall become like wool.

19 If you are willing and obedient,

you shall eat the good of the land;

20 but if you refuse and rebel,

you shall be devoured by the sword;

for the mouth of the Lord has spoken (NRSV).

God is, through the prophet Isaiah, calling the nation, which God loves, to repent and change. The people are evil. Their “hands are full of blood” (v 15). Who is it that they are abusing? Whose blood have they shed? Verse 17 lets us know the answer to that question. The people against whom the nation of Judah has sinned are the people who have fallen from or been kicked off of “the power ladder.” It is the “oppressed,” “the orphan,” and “the widow.” Those were the groups that had no political power and no financial influence. They were, therefore, “easy pickings” for those who did have political power and/or wealth. They were the ones who were abused. They were the ones who suffered one injustice after another. They were the ones who lost their lives at the hands of their own fellow Jews. And God was so angry that God was ready to destroy the nation of Judah. God was ready to do that because God could stand this sin no longer.

Now please look with me at Isa 3:13-15.

Is. 3:13 The Lord rises to argue his case;

he stands to judge the peoples.

14 The Lord enters into judgment

with the elders and princes of his people:

It is you who have devoured the vineyard;

the spoil of the poor is in your houses.

15 What do you mean by crushing my people,

by grinding the face of the poor? says the Lord God of hosts (NRSV).

Here God is declaring anger toward the leaders of the nation of Judah. The phrase “elders and princes of his people” in v 14 makes that clear. What have these lead­ers done? They “have devoured the vineyard.” The phrase “the vineyard” is used in the Book of Isaiah to refer to the nation of God’s people, i.e., Judah (see Isa 5:1-7). How have the leaders of God’s people “devoured the vineyard”? The lines that follow that phrase answer that question. They have taken “spoil” from “the poor” and have made that spoil their own. In other words, they have treated the poor of their own nation as enemies. They have, as it were, gone to war against them and have taken what they have as the victors in ancient warfare took home the wealth of those whom they defeated. Again, the prophet cries out, on behalf of God, against the way the people without power are treated. In Isa 1 the terms that are used are “the oppressed,” “the orphans,” and “the widows.” Here the term that is used describes the category that these same types of people fell into. They were poor. They did not have the influence or the power to protect themselves. The leaders of God’s people were to guarantee that justice was granted to these people, but instead they were the very ones who oppressed them.

If we love America according to the teachings of the Bible, if we love America by The Book, we will love our nation like God loved the nation of Judah as revealed by the words of God’s prophets. We will love America by being the voice of those without power or influence. We will love America by crying out for those who often have no one of influence who will listen to them.

Isaiah is just one of the prophets whose message is dominated by cries for God’s people to have soft hearts toward the poor and disenfranchised. And we should note that many of the prophets were men of influence. Some scholars think that Isaiah was a priest, and Jeremiah and Ezekiel certainly were. These men were not without influence; they were from the upper classes; but God took hold of them and made them spokesmen for the lower classes.

It is, I think, not difficult to see a parallel between God’s use of the prophets and the way God can use the members of the Broadway church of Christ. May we be prophetic voices. May we cry out for the people whom often are completely factored out of all the political equations. And may whatever political influence we have be used to focus attention upon the needs of America’s poor and disenfranchised. That is one way to love America by The Book.

The next two lessons that I hear from the Bible on how to love America are found in the New Testament. Please look with me at 1 Timothy 2:1-2 (1Tim) and follow along as I read.

1Tim 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.

Now please turn to 1 Peter (1Pet) 2:13-17.

1Pet 2:13 For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, 14 or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. 16 As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. 17 Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

As many of you will know, the kings and emperors of the ancient world were often unbelievably heinous persons. Their evil often expressed itself in sick and perverted ways. But the New Testament is very clear. The Christians of that day were to pray for them and to honor them.

I confess that I struggle with this teaching. I find political leaders very easy to criticize, and I get so caught up in criticizing them that I do not honor them in anyway at all. I believe that I am supposed to pray for my leaders from an attitude which honors them. And I am trying to learn how to be a prophetic voice of critique while, at the same time, being a person who honors and prays blessing upon our nation’s leaders.

I have been around this church long enough to know that we have many members who have an easier time praying positive prayers of blessing for and honoring leaders who are Republicans than they do upon Democrats. We have a smaller number of members who have the exact opposite problem. My problem may be more severe. You see, I have just as much trouble with Republicans as I do Democrats. So I ask you, please commit with me today to love America by The Book by honoring leaders with whom we agree and with whom we do not agree and by praying for all of our leaders with an attitude of honor in our hearts as we pray. Please join me in prayer now. [I led a prayer for President George W. Bush, his cabinet, and other leaders at this point in the sermon].

For the third lesson concerning loving America by The Book, I want to note briefly a passage in the Book of Acts and a passage in the Book of Revelation. In Acts 17, we read of Paul’s sermon in the city of Athens. In that sermon Paul makes use of an idol that he saw as walked through the city. Listen to what he says:

Acts 17:23 For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

Remember that Paul was a Jew. Jews were commanded not to make any idols. Yet Paul the Jew connects an idol in Athens to the living God of the Bible. That is radical.

In Revelation 13 we have the story of the Red Dragon. That story makes clear use of a pagan myth known all over the world of Paul’s day. I doubt that any of the original readers of the Book of Revelation had not already heard the pagan version of this myth. Yet the inspired apostle John takes this myth and uses it to convey a message of Jesus, a message concerning the incredible power of the living God.

If we are going to love America by The Book, we must do what Paul and John did. We must embrace America’s secular culture enough to be able to find ways to proclaim Jesus, ways that are built into that culture. If we use means to connect with our culture that simply do not connect, then we will be irrelevant and fruitless. God will find others to spread the Good News. God will not use us.

Surely we all want to be instruments of righteousness in the hands of God. Let’s learn from Paul and John. Let’s make sure that we find ways to spread Christian faith to our culture.

Let’s love America by The Book. Let’s love America like the prophets did by being God’s voices for those without power and influence. Let’s love America as Paul and Peter teach us to do by honoring our leaders and praying for them from a stance of honor. Let’s love America like Paul loved Athens and John loved the people of Asia Minor by embracing our secular culture enough to find the best way to connect the Bible’s Good News to that culture.

We are going to sing “God Bless America” now. Please pray this song. Please pray that God will bless in God’s way our nation.

If you have a spiritual need that we can address, please come now as we stand and sing.

SOURCE: http://broadway-church.org/home/sermons/2003/0706.html

Broadway Church of Christ, Lubbock, Texas

Sphere: Related Content

Matthew 6:9-13
“`Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one. ‘”

Sphere: Related Content

Sphere: Related Content

Many believers and Christians today have an underdeveloped knowledge of proper theology and proper biblical concept. It seems that they are guided more by political ideology rather than by sound biblical teaching. When discussing the purpose for the creation and existence of mankind and/or studying the book of Genesis and the creation story people do not seem to have a clear understanding of the purpose for man or of the rest of creation that ties it all together. I have heard the point made many times that God created man to glorify Himself. This is true. Yet if we do not understand or cannot explain fully what that means- we cannot really worship effectively or witness to other people effectively.

If we say to the unbeliever or potential believer, “God just likes to be worshipped,” and do not explain more fully, the listener may well go away guffawing because it could be said that what you have just described is a psychotic egomaniac- a God that has created an entire reality just so he can have someone to give him flattery and adulation. The truth is that there is far more to the concept of worship than this. Also, when teaching doesn’t cover this point with sound and thorough explanation it sends believers out ill- equipped to answer tough questions from the world.

So what is the purpose of mankind and all life, of all creation and of worship?

There are many verses throughout the Bible that proclaim the purpose for the creation of the cosmos. Simply put, all creation was made to glorify and reveal God. God created the Earth and mankind to reveal himself throughout the universe, to share himself with and through life and to commune with and through mankind and the rest of his creation. God made man special… with a special place and purpose in creation… to tend and take care of his garden and to be holy. Most people that are familiar with Judeo-Christian tradition know the rest of the story… man rebelled. Yet God’s original purpose for man and the rest of the cosmos is still intact, in force and has been reconciled by Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:18-20 says this:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Colossians 1:15-20 says this:

The Supremacy of Christ

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and