Creation Care

[Jon Twitchell]

903.10. Creation Care
With deep appreciation of God’s creation we believe we are
to strive to exhibit the stewardship qualities that help preserve
His work. Recognizing we have been given a stake in
sustaining the integrity of our surroundings, we accept the
individual and collective responsibilities of doing so. (2009)
(Genesis 2:15, Psalms 8:3-9; 19:1-4; 148)

Based on a conversation I recently had, I wonder if this current statement (which is pretty basic) needs to be fleshed out... or even if it could be fleshed out. Perhaps we are too diverse to have much more than this that we can agree upon.

At the same time, I wonder if the diverse group here at NazNet could develop a document of statements that provide not only a stronger basis for Creation Care, but would help us to understand the practical applications in our culture.

I certainly don't think that NazNet is entirely representative of the denomination... and yet we're a pretty diverse group. I'd be interested to see if a statement could be built that we could all agree upon.

[Randy Wise]

Based on a conversation I recently had, I wonder if this current statement (which is pretty basic) needs to be fleshed out... or even if it could be fleshed out. Perhaps we are too diverse to have much more than this that we can agree upon.

At the same time, I wonder if the diverse group here at NazNet could develop a document of statements that provide not only a stronger basis for Creation Care, but would help us to understand the practical applications in our culture.

I certainly don't think that NazNet is entirely representative of the denomination... and yet we're a pretty diverse group. I'd be interested to see if a statement could be built that we could all agree upon.

I believed the following stated creation care has evolved into earth day:smilies0295:

Sorry I couldn't resist

Randy

[Jon Twitchell]

Perhaps one way we can speak of Creation Care is through the idea of reflecting the Image of God.

We believe that we are a reflection of God's Nature... which would include His Creative and Sustaining Nature. When we participate in the Missio Dei, we are to participate in the redemptive and transformational work of God.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

A while back, I had found a whole document compiled by at least Doug Hardy and Jonathan Twining. I thought it was on the NCM website, but I can't find it there now. Here's another resource though. (http://www.enc.edu/environmental_science/creation_care.html)

[Wilson Deaton]

... Perhaps we are too diverse to have much more than this that we can agree upon.

... I'd be interested to see if a statement could be built that we could all agree upon.

The diversity is too great.

On one side there are people like me who believe that human-induced climate change is real and that it is the single most important moral issue facing our world today. On the other side, we have those who have called me a "Chicken Little alarmist" and say that climate change is a politically or economicly motivated myth.

No, I don't think a it possible to create a statement that we could all agree on.

Wilson

[Todd Erickson]

Heh. We could start by clarifying what Unity in Agape actually looks like. It's possible that by looking at the folks who claim to be Nazarenes, but define themselves by principals which, by necessity, defy Agape, that we could begin to clarify some of that diversity.

But that's just me.

[Jim Abrams]

The diversity is too great.

On one side there are people like me who believe that human-induced climate change is real and that it is the single most important moral issue facing our world today. On the other side, we have those who have called me a "Chicken Little alarmist" and say that climate change is a politically or economicly motivated myth.

No, I don't think a it possible to create a statement that we could all agree on.

Wilson

I'm no so pessimistic. I believe we can create or even find a statement that is more clear regardless of anyone's view of "human-induced climate change." It would be important to have the statement grounded in the Genesis narrative's Creation account (Gen. 1-3) and Paul is very helpful in Romans (Rom. 8). Start with God, his heart and intention for the earth and move to a faithful response. This approach should help lead discussion out of the realm of anyone's personal political opinion and into the realm of theology and faithful practice. Because God cares about his creation the Christian is careful to live in a way that honors, respects, and preserves it to the glory of God.

[Wilson Deaton]

I'm not so pessimistic. I believe we can create or even find a statement that is more clear regardless of anyone's view of "human-induced climate change."

Well, Jim, it's certainly worth a try but at best I'm skeptically hopeful.

Wilson

[Eric Vail]

The suggestion to start with Genesis 1-3 is a good idea. From what I have read on Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4ff, it seems the view on humanity's vocation in the world in Genesis 1 is humanity as king and in Genesis 2 it is humanity as priest. (If anyone can show me a biblical passage that speaks of humanity as prophet in the natural world I would be grateful--so far I can only think of the prophetic role of God's elect among the nations.)

To speak of humanity as king does not mean we have unilateral power over nature, as if it is a lifeless backdrop for our doings. Genesis 1 speaks of God's call to the waters and land to participation in the grand narrative; all creation is called to community--support of others toward abundant life. Israel's kings were called to be followers of God. They were called to lead in righteousness and justice a nation marked by those same traits. They had power for a purpose (a loving one); sovereignty was not an end in itself.

Genesis 1 ends with God resting. Other ancient Near Eastern creation accounts end with the creator-god resting. However, that god is typically resting in a temple constructed for that god, either by that god or by the other gods. There is no temple mentioned in Genesis 1. I believe the point is that all creation is God's temple. Furthermore, God is not limited to a specific location within creation (the heavens and the earth). This is a good reason for Creation Care.

Genesis 2 ties nicely in with this conclusion to Genesis 1. The vocabulary used of Adam's vocation in the garden is similar to that of the Temple priests, as is the vocabulary used for the garments God makes for Adam and Eve. Several scholars have made these observations about the parallels between the Temple and creation in Genesis 2 as well as between Adam's and the priests' vocation. This is why the theological statement made by the gospel writer that the resurrected Jesus was (mis)taken to be a tender-of-the-garden is so powerful. According to Genesis 2 (and later the statement about the resurrected Jesus) to fulfill humanity's vocation is to take care of God's temple/creation.

[Wilson Deaton]

Though I've expressed skepticism concerning the success of a unifying creation care statement, I still want to contribute to the effort...

I'll start with this:

Remember the cattle-ranch wars of the wild west? (From movies, at least.) From time to time we would see a rancher dam up a stream to water his cattle and irrigate his field even though doing so robbed other downstream ranchers of the important resource. What kind of man would selfishly divert and exploit resources for his own good at the expense of others? In other words, killing a stream or ruining a lake doesn't just kill a stream or ruin a lake; it also hurts all those who would benefit from that same stream or lake.

My point is that a policy statement on creation care cannot ignore that how we treat creation isn't only about creation itself, but also about caring for those with whom we share creation.

Wilson