In an attitude eerily reminiscent of that of
Al Gore and other
Global Warming advocates, this week,
Prince Charles expressed a very disturbing sentiment. To quote:
How can we begin to address poverty if we haven't first ensured our planet is habitable?Not only is this sentiment misguided, but it also shows the lengths to which people will go to ensure that their own personally approved agendas are advanced.
In light of the evidence, it is hard to deny that people are at least partially to blame for the state of the environment in the modern day. In fact, as Christians, it is actually one of our core tenants. After man's fall from perfection, the earth itself was cursed.
To Adam he said..."Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." - Genesis 3:17-19 NIV
So, if for no other reason, Christians must admit at least partial responsibility for a damaged earth simply because the Bible says that we damaged it. As a result, it is, at least partially, our responsibility to reverse the effect that our first parents' fall had on the planet. But should this be priority number one?
Simply put, no.
In a statement mirroring numerous commandments from the Old Testament, Jesus once said,
'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. - Matthew 22:37b-40 NIV
Priority number one for the Christian, and indeed all of humankind, is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Human beings are called, first and foremost, to love God, serve Him, and live for Him.
On an equal plane, we are also called to love our neighbor as ourselves. Loving God and loving our fellow people is to be the heartbeat of the Christian life.
Keeping Jesus' own words in mind, what do we do in the case of a human-induced climate crisis, assuming that there is one? We must, of course, do our part to reverse what we have done. But should we put this before something like extreme poverty? I would say, again, no.
For the poor of the world, a warming globe is the least of their concerns. In fact, I am willing to bet that many of those living in extreme poverty are unaware of the science of global warming and wouldn't understand it if they did hear about it. For the poor of the world, food, shelter, and providing for their loved ones is first on their list. We are not showing them love if we ignore their plight and focus, instead, on a debatable issue like global warming.
For those in a developing nation, global warming is low on the list of priorities. What they are focused on is getting out of their poverty and becoming competitive on the world stage. (Ironically, these are the same people who are forward-thinking enough to invest in sustainable energy sources to begin with, so teaching them about climate change is really a moot point.)
Ultimately, we as a race should be more concerned about helping those in need than in whether or not an animal species goes extinct. At the same time, we
are called to be stewards of this planet we call home.
What do you think of Prince Charles' statement?
Comments (32)
It seems to me that as humanity, helping the poor is walking and being stewards if the earth is chewing gum. Why would we, in any way, think we cannot do both?
Strangely enough, I actually agree with this post... Mostly.
Humanity > environment.
I agree with this post as well. ...Mostly.
to your argument that global warming doesn't have an effect the poor, i would point out that the poor are and will be the most affected. whether they understand it or not doesn't matter. this is especially ironic since they're also the ones who contribute the least to global warming.
that said, i see urgent needs to address both poverty and environmental issues. it isn't an either/or equation, and i believe they're both of utmost importance.Why can't we just take care of both? It's not like we can send everyone onto the streets to care for the poor, and not everyone has had schooling in researching environmental preservation techniques.
"For those in a developing nation, global warming is low on the list of priorities."
Except for ocean-bordering developing nations such as Bangladesh, which have been placed under extreme risk due to rising sea levels associated with global warming. I'd say global warming is a pretty big concern for these nations, especially considering the fact that some of its effects have already begun to affect the lives of the poorest.
The issues of poverty and the environment are intertwined.
This reminds me of a similar debate I've seen many times in different churches and in my high school: should we send missionaries overseas or should we witness in America?
My answer: Yes.
If you feel called to bring the Kingdom of God overseas, then bring the Kingdom of God overseas; if you feel called to bring the Kingdom of God in America, then bring it here.
Likewise,
If you feel called to take steps to slow (or better yet, reverse, if possible) the effects of Global Warming, then by the Power of God, do so.
If you feel called to help the poor, then by the Love of God, do so.
Both callings are Biblical. God says to take care of the earth, and God says to take care of the poor. I don't see why Christians, as a group, need to all focus their efforts on one or the other; in fact, I think that's Unbiblical. To paraphrase Paul's letter to the Corinthians, we are all one body, but we have many different parts. It's not good for the entire body to help the poor and leave the environment to ruin, and neither is the converse true. God gave us different talents and different callings, so let's do different things.
I personally feel that if the PEOPLE on the planet are taken care of FIRST, then we the people will be able to take better care of our planet and environment.
I did a search of the Bible looking for the Book of Gore or any reference to global warming or environmentalism.
I didn't find anything. DRAT!
Like @sheepthatsblack@xanga said, God has gifted the members of the Body of Christ are to serve in different ways. God burdens us with different burdens and sends us to different places in the harvest field, but so long as we're going in obedience to Him and out of love for Him and our neighbor and in His strength, the work we do for Him is not in vain and is all for His glory.
If we don't attend to the poor, they tend to scatter the earth with themselves, because they have no where to go and nothing to offer. However, they do live, breath and exists. When we get through going green and attending to global warming, the bible will still fulfill itself. This world will end and what was done to it will not be undone. The poor have always been on earth, even when rich people defiled it? Why would we have to stop helping anybody that we are in a position to help? Do people really believe that not helping the poor will expedite their progress of reversing global warming or convert those who are not poor to going green?
This perception is baffoonry at it's best. At the end of the day, you can always refer to the bible. Did Jesus say anything about ignoring the poor in an effort to take care of the earth. We should have always been doing both. And also, the poor surely are not the primary culprits for the state of the earth. How do you propose to make the rich and middle class accountable for the state of the earth? Why was the poor singled out?
Dennyt
Actually, economic estimates show that the world economy is losing somewhere over a trillion dollars a year dealing with issues caused by global warming, which include flooding of coastal areas, drought and famine. It seems that by combating global warming we would be able to both help the poor directly, and free up more resources to then help the poor.
The Bible and religion don't have anything to do with any of this. If people would keep that part out of government, maybe things could get done quicker. Bickering over religious issues concerning science only hinders it's progress. The time and money spent and lost due to this is staggering and could be put to better use with action towards cleaning up the environment or aiding others. Keep religion out of government!
Join - "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster"
www.venganza.org
May His Noodleyness be with you.
Who cares if underdeveloped countries stay underdeveloped? So long as people can feel good about saving the world from the monster in the closet, more people starving is certainly worth the trade-off.
@GodlessLiberal@xanga - Quite true
@Lesabre500@xanga - We live in a Democracy with separation of Church and State, so yes, we should keep religion out of the government. However, I'm not sure how this point is relevant to the discussion...If a religious group wants to voluntarily help the government on a project that helps the poor (or the environment for that matter), how is that a bad thing? And personally, I don't think it's the religion in government that makes it so slow, but the very nature of democratic government. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, Democracy is the most inefficient and unbearably slow form of government. The fact that religious organizations waste immense amounts of resources on stupid things is sad, but a moot point because government does the same thing (except they waste tax dollars), as does the scientific community. I would guess the scientific community wastes less, but there are still some pretty frivolous and ridiculous studies that have been published (I don't want to think about ones that have gotten grants but weren't published).
Amen. Unfortunately this worldly attitude seems to have even creeped into the Church today as well.
I think a large part of both problems could be solved by getting the poor out of the cities and in the country, give them land to work, and teach them to grow their own food. There is an old saying: Give a man a fish, you feed him once; teach a man to fish, you feed him a life time. Even so, there will still be poor who need help and compassion, but, I think, not quite so many.
Why can't we do both? Feed the poor, give them the tools, the training, and the resources to learn to feed themselves, and do it all in a manner that works to sustain the enviroment. Not to put the world on a pedastal, but God did give Man dominion over it. Not ownership, but stewardship. And we have done a pretty piss poor job, if you ask me. It is possible to be pro-poor, and pro-earth, all the while being pro-faith.
I am glad to see that this point is brought to forefront. I agree with most of the comments that we should do both. But I disagree with any premise that states that our efforts to curb global warming will have lasting effects, even reversifying effects. This planet has been on a downward spiral since the fall of man, and there's nothing we can do to reverse that, except for Christ to come back, which He will and destroy it, because basically, it won't be good for anything at all. That said, I think our efforts to reduce our personal impact on the planet are honored by God since He commanded man to care for the planet.
If a line has to be drawn with someone, then I would draw it at people coming before nature, but I agree that it doesn't need to be drawn. I think humanity should come before nature, but that both should be treated as very, very important.
The starvation of millions of people in africa is due to changing weather patterns that stopped rain from falling on certain regions of Africa. there are of course other reasons like civil war and such. but to say we are helping the poor without helping the earth, which in turn helps the people is stupid. Most "third world" countries are mostly inhabited by farmers. when i was in Tanzania that was what the majority of people did farm. but if the environment is not good that year they starve.
I think that you are right. People first, Planet second.
personally, i like nature far more than most of humanity. i'd rather save the planet.
Okay I must be dense this morning. Why do they have to be mutually exclusive ?Are we not called to take care of our neighbors and be stewards of the earth.
So I throw my phone in the trash or put it in a recycle bin and it gets dumped in another country or your backyard because you can't live in a place for economical reasons that doesn't allow this who am I hurting more the environment or the poor.
Or I want cheap hamburgers and so they burn down a rain forest and those who have lived on the land are displaced and part of the environment is destroyed because of it . Who did I hurt more the economically disadvantaged or the environment.
Hard questions have to be answered by us all in a world of global understanding.
First of all, man-made global warming is a hoax created by the "Never waste a good crisis" people, at least, according to well over 30,000 of the worlds climatologists (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=64734) and several heads of state.
Secondly, if it had gone as bad as they Chicken Little us it has, it would obviously be the end times, in which case no amount of work against it would work. Christian energies would be best spent elsewhere unless expressly directed by our Father into the "War for the Environment."
Finally, we should stop guessing what Jesus would have us do and focus on what He is having us do this moment. I know few here have ever been taught how to have a personal relationship with Jesus, but it is what we are called to first and foremost. We are to focus on building that relationship to be stronger and closer than every other relationship we have. Until this is accomplished, all shoulds are moot.