Whose Earth? - a Manifesto for Green Christians?
A review article based on Chris Seaton's book Whose Earth? published by Crossway Books in 1992.
How do Christians live? We know that we are in the world, but not of the world. We consciously use the Earth's resources, but how do we relate our Christian calling to our being consumers? We are more and more aware of contrasting standards of living across the nations, but what actually is an authentic Christian lifestyle in a developed country? Chris Seaton provides some stimulating discussion and challenging answers in Whose Earth?. There is no pietism in this book! Here is a helpful attempt to bring the Word of God to bear on our individual lives and our national culture - and to translate biblical principles into practice. The analysis of cultural trends is helpful - this is a book which makes a significant contribution to the literature on contemporary Christianity.Three major questions are asked. First, `What's it all about?'reviews environmental and lifestyle issues. Second, `What does God say?'presents biblical teaching on the created world, the effects of the Fall, the restoration in Jesus Christ, and the role of the Church in extending the Kingdom. Finally, `What can we do?' translates biblical principles into suggested actions: justice, righteousness, stewardship, love, reconciliation, power. `Green' Christianity is presented, not as a fashionable fad, but as a natural outworking of Christ's call for us to be salt and light in the world.
The theological argument is based on the Genesis record of origins. We have a perfect creation, which became marred because of Adam's sin, but which looks towards complete restoration in Christ. Kingdom people are exhorted to `face the challenge of being those who participate in this liberation of creation, rather than its bondage'. Seaton consciously emphasises the importance of the theological framework. `Perhaps the doctrine of creation is most needy of profile in our churches. A clear knowledge of this subject is essential as a foundation to an environmental perspective and as a basis to refute the monistic myths of the New Age world view'.
The author shows a welcome confidence in working with Genesis as history. For example, he links the `rule of decay in creation' with the `law of sin and death in humanity' (p.71). The whole creation has been thrown `out of synch'. Seaton accepts that both physical and spiritual death are the punishment of sin. He writes of `the tragic event of the fall' (p.52), and recognises that `it is very difficult to be precise about what creation was like before the fall' (p.69). These views alone are sufficient to distance Seaton from the Theistic Evolution teachings that are so prevalent in our country. According to the Theistic Evolutionists, the world has always exhibited a fallen state and only spiritual death is regarded as man's punishment for his disobedience. They could never say with Seaton: `Extinction is forever because God will not start again'(p.42), because Theistic Evolutionists argue that since evolutionary processes are still operating, creation is still continuing.
Nevertheless, Seaton makes a number of secondary comments in the text which indicate that he is willing to be associated with Theistic Evolutionists. Examples follow with comments.
`The purpose of this chapter is not to discuss the "how?" questions about creation, but the "why?" questions' (p.36). The how/why polarisation has been used for years by Theistic Evolutionists to explain their position. However, it is an inadequate approach to what God has revealed in the Bible. Much of the controversy is not about `how'in terms of scientific explanations of phenomena, but about `how'in terms of history. The Bible speaks about the latter but not about the former. Thus, for example, Babel not only has theological meaning about judgment (the `why'), but the Scriptures also inform us that the language of the people was confused so that they lost their social cohesiveness and scattered over the face of the Earth (the `how'). Chris Seaton does appeal to several aspects of Biblical history in his book. Apart from the quotations above, Seaton refers to Babel as a historical event (p.75) and to vegetarianism before the fall (p.144). However, by holding back on the `how', the effectiveness of these references is undermined.
`In the poetic language of Genesis 2, this choice - and God's risk - is represented by two trees' (p.59). What are the grounds for saying that we are reading something expressed in poetic language? Convincing arguments for this position have not appeared anywhere in the literature! Theistic Evolutionists are too fond of referring to poetic language without doing their homework on the text - and their words have the effect of undermining the historicity of the Genesis record.
`Adam, the depiction of early humanity, . . .' (p.59). Such a description opens the door to non-historical interpretations, because it suggests figurative language. However, Biblical Christians must maintain that Adam, the first man, was as real as Christ, the second man The Bible(Romans chapter 5 verses 12 to 21, 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verse 47). Since this is a truth under attack, Christians should be very careful to give a Biblical emphasis and avoid ambiguity.
`Satan, represented as the serpent in the narrative . . .' (p.61) suggests that we are dealing with a story narrative, rather than history.
`... every child who has been to Sunday School knows that each species of animal was involved in the rescue plan of Noah's ark. Precise interpretations may differ, but the message is clear.' (p.74). What does one say to this! For years, creationists have been trying to sweep away the cobwebs of tradition about the ark. The Genesis Kinds came from God's hand - speciation follows in history. The ark did not carry representatives of every species, but representatives of every Kind of air-breathing land animal. The difference is important for both the understanding and the credibility of the Genesis account. The comment made about precise interpretations differing is a gross understatement! One wonders whether some Theistic Evolutionists accept the historicity of the record in any sense! Others argue for a local flood, which at least is an acknowledgement that the passage has a historical character. The comment that `the message is clear' is true, but the context in Seaton's book is one that reinforces the `not how, but why'approach discussed above. The only Biblical position is surely to argue that since the Genesis Flood is history, and is a key episode in the history of the Earth, it ought to deserve a high profile in our thinking, in education, etc, and we ought never to be satisfied with taking the meaning whilst passing over issues of objective history.
The 10 books listed under `Creation' in the bibliography are not titles which will ground people in a clear understanding of Genesis as history: most readers will get the theistic evolution views. Schaeffer's Genesis in space and time and Hooykas' Religion and the rise of modern science are good books, but they address wider philosophical and historical issues. Burke's Creation and evolution is the only one where a clear statement of creationist thinking is found - but here the context is one of controversy and `where Christians agree to differ'.
This concession to Theistic Evolution is a weakness - it is the Achilles Heel of the book. The theological base is good - but the history of theological trends shows that theology that is not rooted in objective history does not produce the quality of Christian living that Seaton expressly wants to see.
David J. Tyler (1993)
