Saturday, April 26, 2014

"Caring for Creation"

This weekend (April 26 & 27), we will be celebrating Earth Day.  The theme of our services will be “Caring for Creation” and our principal scripture reading is Genesis 1: 27-31.  Part of this scripture says:

“So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

“God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’”

            Since this passage of scripture is part of the larger story of creation in Genesis 1, it frequently gets caught up in the sometimes bitter debate among Christians and nonChristians, concerning the implications of the theory of evolution for religious faith.[i]  While questions of science and faith are critically important in their own right, these few verses make a major contribution to Christians’ understanding of our relationship with nature—and, our relationship with God.

            As persons of faith, it is essential that we understand what these verses say about our relationship with nature and our relationship with God. 

            It is so important that we bring the right questions to this text. Yet, even when Christians do ask this text about our relationships with nature and God, they frequently misinterpret what these verses say about our relationships.  A case in point is the recent book, A Climate for Change, by Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist who is also an evangelical Christian, and her husband, Andrew Farley, an evangelical pastor.  In their interpretation of Genesis 1: 27-31, Hayhoe and Farley write:

“If we’re honest, there is really nothing here [verses 27-31] beyond be fruitful, increase, rule over the animals, and eat anything you want. Furthermore, if we conclude that there is an ecological mandate for today within this passage, then we must equally conclude that our mandate is to have more and more children and to increase the world’s population.  This would, in turn, contribute to more climate change and environmental issues, not diminish them.”[ii]

            When we faithfully interpret the scriptures, it is important to ask about the context of those persons who first read a particular passage.  We need to ask ourselves, what would the first persons have thought about, as they were reading this passage of scripture—or hearing it read—for the first time.  To faithfully interpret the scriptures, we need to take seriously how the first readers would have understood the passage.  Although well-meaning, the problem with Hayhoe and Farley’s interpretation is that they do not examine how this passage would have been heard by the first Hebrews.

            Biblical scholars remind us that the first Hebrews to read this passage were living in a context in which they were surrounded by the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures.  Both cultures were ruled by a king.  In these cultures, the king was described as possessing the divine image of that culture’s god.  That is to say, the king possessed the “divine image” of their gods.  As someone possessing the image of the divine, the king was the divine representative on Earth.  For the Egyptians and Mesopotamians, the king was supposed to care for all of the citizens, as well as the country’s environment.  Biblical scholars refer to this understanding in Egypt and Mesopotamia as the “royal motif.” 

            The first Hebrews reading Genesis 1: 27-31 would have interpreted this passage within their context, surrounded by the countries of Egypt and Mesopotamia.  They would have understood God as saying that all people are created in God’s image—not just the king or ruler.  Further, they would have understood God as saying that everyone is responsible for caring for one another and for nature—not just the king.  To be created in God’s image is both a privilege and a responsibility.

            When we take into account how the first Hebrews would have read and interpreted this passage, then Genesis 1: 27-31 offers profound answers to two of the most important questions concerning life:

1.      What is the relationship between human persons and God?  God sets humans apart from the rest of creation as being special and different.  In this special relationship, God makes humans stewards of the rest of God’s Creation. 

2.      What is the relationship between human persons and nature?  God gives humans dominion in verse 28.  However, dominion does not mean domination, as when one wrestler dominates another.  Instead, dominion refers to the charge that someone has to care for another.  Thus, the human relationship with nature is one of stewardship, reflecting the love and care that God has for all of Creation.

Come and celebrate Earth Day with us this weekend.  We will reflect on our special relationship with God, as well as our special calling to be good stewards of God’s beloved Creation.  At the end of each service, you can even plant some flowers outside our buildings.  Our church is located at the corner of Main and Dawson Streets in Meriden, Kansas.  We have two worship services each weekend:
 

Ø  Our contemporary service starts at 6 pm on Saturday evenings. 
Ø  Our classic service starts on at 10 am on Sunday mornings. 

Everyone is welcome and accepted at both services because God loves us all.



[i] For a discussion of evolution and Christian faith, please see my previous blog, “Can I Be a Christian and Also Accept Evolution,” posted on 17 January 2013 and the follow up posted on 24 January 2013.
[ii] Katharine Hayhoe and Andrew Farley, A Climate for Change, Global Warming Facts for Faith-based Decisions (New York:  Faith Words, 2009), 126-127 in the NOOK edition.  (Italicized emphasis in the text.)  (Note that their claim that this passages permits us to “eat anything you want,” is also a misreading of verse 30, where God says, “I have given every green plant for food,” which the vast majority of Biblical interpreters agree refers to a restrictive vegetarian die.)

No comments:

Post a Comment