Protection of Creation - Joint Statement

For some American readers this is probably a case of "right message, wrong people." One traditional Catholic referred to the three hierarchs as the three stooges. If this had been published by Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, or some other conservation organization it would probably be better received. But I'm about sick of the paradoxes of political admixture that typify American evangelicalism.

 

My state is Victoria and we have had some pretty extended lockdowns in Melbourne, although the regions, where I live have had it a little easier due to less outbreaks. The whole point of the restrictions is to limit exposure to the virus and thus help not only the population but also the health care system which might otherwise get overwhelmed as it has in other countries.

It is hard to be in lockdown and it has a psychological impact on people that isn't always understood, but it has also kept our COVID cases lower than many other countries. Right now we are going through a little bit of a tough time, but we aren't in lockdown at the moment. I fully expect that it could be declared again at any time the infection rates rise dramatically, but I also hope that more vaccinations will mean less cases.

Guessing at motivations and making up conspiracy theories doesn't do anyone any good, and it smacks a little of 'scapegoating' - trying to find someone to blame for something that is simply a virus. Is everything always handled perfectly? No, we are human beings and as humans, we make mistakes, including our leaders and health care professionals. But I don't believe there is any vast conspiracy to purposely harm anyone.

 

​

With respect, I don't think these verses pertain to pollution in the sense of trash, chemicals, or anything we think of today as pollutants. These pertain to ritual defilement; note that shed blood "pollutes" the land in God's eyes.

Are we to take reasonable care of the land? Yes. Are we to follow some wild-eyed theory that will turn our whole way of life upside down? (The document says "...we must choose to eat, travel, spend, invest and live differently...") Hopefully the answer is 'no,' because otherwise we will have to revert to a non-industrial, non-motorized, agrarian way of life which will immediate cause the starvation deaths of more than half the world's population. And we would be obliged to make war with China, because the CCP is not buying into this initiative willingly. We need to be realistic about the ramifications of the 'climate change' push.

Besides, the document is antagonistic toward businesses and capitalism. It indiscriminately implies that businesses in general are greedy and therefore evil, even though they do much good by providing jobs and the goods & services people need.

By concentrating on our wealth, we
find that long-term assets, including the bounty of nature, are depleted for
short-term advantage. Technology has unfolded new possibilities for
progress but also for accumulating unrestrained wealth, and many of us behave in
ways which demonstrate little concern for other people or the limits of the planet...
We must pursue generosity and fairness in the ways that we live, work and use
money, instead of selfish gain...
...we have greedily consumed more of the earth's resources than the
planet can endure...
We must acknowledge that the ways we use money and organize our societies have not
benefited everyone...
To those with more far-reaching responsibilities-heading administrations,
running companies, employing people or investing funds-we say: choose people-
centred profits; make short-term sacrifices to safeguard all our futures; become
leaders in the transition to just and sustainable economies...​

Translation: the for-profit motive of businesses is bad. Businesses have accumulated too much wealth and need to be restrained. Selfishness must be regulated and reduced. Our consumption must be reduced by any means necessary. The organization of our societies is itself subject to being modified by the state, and the things we spend money on should be regulated. Companies must be made to divest their profits (and perhaps ownership) to their employees in a transition to pie-in-the-sky "just and sustainable economies." Folks, this didn't work for Russia in 1917, and it won't work for the entire world today.

You folks are centering your attention on the wonderful-sounding theoretical outcome, but you're missing the mechanism by which it will be theoretically (but not ever actually) achieved. Sure, we all would love utopia. Who wouldn't? But don't expect for one second that enough people will change their spending habits or stop trying to get ahead financially, to bring about this lovely la-la land. People are people. So when Christians join with non-Christians in believing this drivel about societies filled with fairness and sharing for everybody, but they see that almost all people are basically driven by self-interest, they will eventually become convinced to accept the 'revolution solution': make utopia happen by governmental decree, and by force if necessary, "for the good of all." It's Communism 101.

This joint declaration is watered-down and sugar-coated, but it's poison.

 

If any criticism of greed is inherently antagonistic to business, then Jesus was a Leninist.

The actual Russian Revolution bore no resemblance to this document. The lack of historical perspective (and historical knowledge) on display here, and the conclusions it is being made to serve, are simply staggering.

 

I don't see a new dogma being proclaimed. I don't see an article of faith being proclaimed here. No one said you had to believe this to get into heaven. All I see is a letter put out that says hey we should take care of the earth a better. A warming earth affects the poor more so why not try to do your part. They use scripture to back up their argument because after all why should. we not, as Christians, want to take care of God's creation?

 

I don't have any problem with Christians wanting to be good stewards of God's creation. I think the statement goes beyond that, though.

The question was posed by @Botolph, "I would be interested to know what others in the forum think of this joint statement." Now you all know what I think of it (in more detail than anyone expected or wanted, I suppose) .

 

That was the question I posed, and in truth I was interested. And indeed I am interested. My concern with a lot of contemporary social discussion is that many matters have become exceedingly polarised, and you end up with black and white responses. Part of this comes about as the adversarial approach, often typified by our judicial processes, and perhaps formal debate in our legislatures, leads us to this approach, which them becomes stretched and exasperated. And very often no one looks for the common ground. I am not a Marxist, nor even close, and yet I am ready to acknowledge that the Marxist analysis of history often has much to commend it, and you should allow that it may be informative, yet perhaps not sufficient for a total understanding. I have right wing friends who think I am a communist, and I have left wing friends who believe I am a capitalist. I don't think that the tribalism that is imagined is always helpful, and I would prefer to address issues, issue by issue.

I don't believe that corporations can be trusted without regulation, and now that some of them have grown so large they are indeed difficult to regulate. Many years ago when I worked for a Government Department that interacted with businesses, I was visiting one business in relation to a claim, and was told 'have a look at this and if there is any problems let me know and I will get the legislation changed'. I am not against profit, nor against the profit motive, however I know that unrestrained and unconstrained it runs the risk of being diabolical. Money matters, but it is not the only thing that matters, and indeed money does not matter most.

I live in a port city, and indeed the largest coal exporting city on the world. There is little doubt that burning coal is a significant contributor to carbon emissions. Many jobs and livelihood's in this region are directly dependent on coal, and indirectly perhaps the whole region. So I don't think it is simple, and I don't want to be simplistic about it. Yet none the less, the creation, the gift of God, is entrusted to us in dominion, and that dominion has responsibility that we have not been that good about. We need to clean up after ourselves, and if we are not prepared to treasure the gift, what does that say about our relationship with the giver? And I don't mean that we should put it in the cupboard and not use it, for that too would be a failure to live up to our responsibilities.