SAVING EARTH 

By Philip C. Parks

            Would you be surprised to discover that the world’s religions are side-lining some of their doctrinal differences to unite with each other on more contemporary issues? These enemies have discovered a common interest which will aid them toward ecumenicalism. They are not uniting to pool their talents, money, and time to preach the gospel to win unregenerated souls. No, they see a much grater, and more pressing need. The most prominent issue which brings bitter religious theological enemies together is saving the earth’s environment. They are now in the thick of the struggle to save our planet. This is another angle used to unite the world’s religions, and religion may succeed with this issue where politics, at least in our culture, has failed incredibly.

            The issue of saving the earth from those, who in the opinion of these theologians, are recklessly abusing her and selfishly squandering her precious resources without conscience, is a social issue. The word “her” when referring to the earth is used because most of our populace, and possibly most of the world, refer to the earth in the female gender as “Mother Earth.”

            The fodder for their doctrine is “rolling blackouts and spiking gas prices”[1] If that is not sin enough, they’ve added another, more personal sin to their long list: “some think it may also be a sin to drive an SUV” (Sport Utility Vehicle). This is one issue in which all religions are in absolute agreement regardless of their vast differences and violent disagreements with each other on other more fundamental doctrines. The time will come, if it has not already arrived, when saving the earth will be a common, religious fundamental doctrine.

            To make their point in supporting the earth’s preservation, the representative theologians quote their religion’s scriptures in a manner which they hope will influence their followers that “a higher power”, whoever or whatever their god happens to be, is the inspiration for their doctrine. Scriptures regarding conservation of the earth and its resources are quoted simultaneously from the Bible and the Qurn, another name for the Koran, “the sacred text of Islam.”[2]

            The similarities of the scriptures these theologians take from the Bible and the Koran seem to compliment each other---that is until one studies the context of the scriptures used. Most of God’s children certainly would not even pretend to be even remotely familiar with the Koran, for any writing “believed to have been dictated to Muhammad by Gabriel and regarded by Muslims as the foundation of religion, law, culture, and politics”[3] is at the very least, false, and in its extreme, damnable and abominable. The believer of the correct interpretation of the Bible may be ridiculed for his ignorance of the Koran, but in the true believer’s defense, they will value the Word of the Holy Spirit over any angel’s, Gabriel included, regardless of his rank or devotion to any recognized god, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (II Pet. 1:21). Regarding Biblical writings, God’s true followers can speak with authority and with purer motives.

            But not all who quote Biblical scriptures can be trusted. What are the opinions of those who are sponsors of the Biblical teachings of earth’s environment conservation? It is best to be careful of their Biblical interpretations. The Jewish coalition, whoever they are, are said to quote Leviticus 19:9 as their premise: “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the edges of your field.” If this is the strongest verse this coalition can find to promote environmentalism, they’ve failed miserably. The particular Biblical version this verse was taken from is not given, but the King James (Authorized) Version renders it “And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.” Identifying the context of this verse will reveal their gross negligence and very possibly their willful misinterpretation of this verse to justify their goal, for the context does not deal with extravagant waste and abuse of the earth but to instruct the Jewish nation that they were to leave a generous portion of their harvest to those who were poor and also for the strangers in the land. Verse 10 proves this fact: “. . .thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger. . .”

            Not one to be overshadowed by elevated scholars, Pope John Paul II adds his paltry opinion on this subject as well. He refers to a concept called the “structures of sin” which must be overcome. Care to take a wild guess how he recommends doing this? The article is quoted: “Pope John Paul II has said protecting the environment can overcome ‘structures of sin’ and promote respect for creation,” this according to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. One must wonder if the catholic pope has ever heard of the redemptive work of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, on the cross of Calvary as the means for overcoming sin and its “structures.” There is no end to this mere mortal man’s deplorable wresting of the Holy Scriptures. To those with Biblical wisdom, this most certainly reeks of “doctrines of devils” (I Tim. 4:1).

            Then, there is the Evangelical Environment Network. This organization is so far left in left field, they are fielding in foul territory. Even the organization’s name oozes with an air of overzealous and misdirected respect for the earth’s environment as it mixes its erroneous doctrine with wrested Scripture. This group gives portions of Hosea 4:1-3 as their Biblical reference: “There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgement of God in the land. . .Because of this the land mourns and all who live in it waste away.” Again the King James (Authorized) version renders these phrases as “There is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. . .Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish.”

            This organization’s interpretation cannot be further from the truth. They interpret these phrases to say that the nation which squanders the earth’s environment will one day be in want for the environment will no longer produce the nation’s needed resources. Now let us read what the verses actually say: “Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood. Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.” Even an ignorant school boy, the likes of which there is a great abundance these days, can figure out what the scholars of the Evangelical Environment Network overlooked.

            The correct contextual interpretation is this: God is not warning the nation that it will suffer because they wasted their environment, but, that He will punish them for their multitudinous iniquities which are headed up by lies, cruelty to each other, and ignorance of God. The phrase, “blood toucheth blood,” certainly describes our world’s situation today. The Evangelical Environmental Network would make more progress if they shifted their energies to punishing the perpetrators of crime and promoting social morals than saving the earth’s environment.

            Possibly the greatest and most influential argument for protecting the environment is to identify God and the environment as one and the same. Veli Matti Karkkainen, professor of systematic theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, did not come right out and say this but he certainly implied it. He is quoted to say: “How we behave toward the environment and creation, is how we take our stand toward God’s spirit. We either support this life-giving, nurturing presence of God’s spirit or we make everything act against it.” In the preceding quote, the gross and disrespectful failure to capitalize the word “spirit”, referring to God’s Spirit, can be attributed to either Rachael Zoll, the article’s author, or to Karkkainen. But Karkkainen is certainly guilty of referring to God’s Spirit as an inanimate “it” just as surely as he would refer to the environment as an “it.” Does he believe that the Spirit of God can be used, abused, squandered, and destroyed in the same manner he believes the environment can?

            To the world, the environment has already become an intrinsic factor in its salvation. Religion and its leaders are energizing and uniting around the green banner of this issue. Jesus Christ and His work of salvation have long been discarded, forgotten, or blatantly usurped. To the Bible student, this is a vivid reminder of the New Testament Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, scribes, and lawyers, who ordinarily were bitter mutual enemies to each other, uniting their cause against Christ. But, the end result of their efforts and their worldwide following is also woefully recorded in the same Bible from which they so recklessly abuse: “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God” (Ps. 9:17).