Sermons

"Whose World Is It Anyway?"

Delivered from the Pulpit of First Congregational Church

of Anchorage by The Reverend Mark E. Long

on August 30, 2009

Lections:  Gen. 9.1-7

                  II Pet. 3.10-13

                  Mk. 16.14-20

When one wishes to wind down summer's "sermon box" series and move through Labor Day with an eye of anticipation for what lies ahead, beginning with Spirit Sunday, this is not the topic he hopes to draw from the box.  But things being as they are - I did - and so I will spend the next two Sundays reflecting on the environment and what Christians have and maybe should think about it.  Specifically, I have been asked to consider Christianity, the environment, and what St. Thomas (I assume Aquinas) and St. Francis of Assisi had to say about it.

What I quickly learned in my study is Christians don't see eye to eye on the matter.[1]  I observed also that how anyone sees the relationship of humans and nature depends on how they interpret Gen. 1:28.  "God blessed (male and female humans), and 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."  What does it mean to "subdue" the earth, and have "dominion" over it all?

This week I will give a perspective of some which strikes me as worrisome, and provide a response to them next week, in part, through the writings of Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi.  After which, we will see where it all comes out.  Is there or should there be a particularly Christian way to see the environment, which governs how we behave toward it?

I will not speculate on the truth in advertising of global warming or whether human activity is its cause, much more informed minds than mine seem to be at odds on the matter.  My concern is a larger question, and a silly one for some of you, should humans really care whether it is or not?

We may not have anybody here today that does not see this as a silly question but in the wider Church, they are out there and not so very far away.  They even have a name that telegraphs their belief about the relationship between humans and nature - dominion theology.

Matthew 16:19 is their rallying cry:  "I (the Lord) will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."  It says essentially, this is our world God gave it to us, lock stock and barrel, to do with as we choose.

This belief follows an interpretation of Genesis 1:28 which put humans in charge of all of creation to have "dominion" over it without rival and to "subdue" it as they please.  Is this what it says?  Let's take a look.

Humans are given "dominion" over all other life.  The Hebrew root for dominion is 'radah'.  It establishes a hierarchy of power and authority of creation on which the human race sits on top.  It signifies power, control, and authority of one over another.  The word is used in other places of the Bible to explain the relationships between masters and household servants, and even Israel's king and Israel's enemies.  When used of Israel's king, 'radah' is the word to describe the relationship of the king to Israel's enemies but not of the king to the Israelites.  So the word seems to mean something more than to simply "reign" over.

The phrase in verse 28 to "subdue" the earth is even more troubling.  The verb "subdue" is translated from the Hebrew 'kavash' meaning to force another into a subordinate position.  This word is used in other places in describing the occupation of enemy territory, forced slavery, and even rape.

The force this implies is apparent in God's word to Noah after the flood.  "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.  The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth&  I give you everything."

What gives the writer such a cynical idea that God wills humans to have "dominion" over all other life and especially to "subdue" it?  It is clear he does.  As the creation unfolds life comes from life - "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures &"  "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind."  God creates only humans out of God alone, says Chapter one, and they alone are made "in God's image."

There is the priestly role of the writer to consider but also something else his social world tells us.[2]  The world in which the writer lives is one of subsistence farming.  The relationship between human life and nature was a rocky one (no pun intended).  Humans tried to plant on sloping hills in rocky soil and then pray for rain that was sometimes plentiful but much of the time not.[3]  Israelite life was a constant struggle to draw food out of rocks.  In effect, the Israelite farmer "subdued" the earth simply in order to scratch out an existence.

In that time and place, it is easy to see why the writer of Genesis may have used strong adversarial language to describe the relationship between humans and nature.  But time and place have changed; our modern context is much different.  Is this ancient view, held doggedly by many Christians, still valid?  I will give you a week to think about that one.

But there is another critical factor that plays into dominion theology, a factor that scared many (irrespective of political affiliation) about the George W. Bush presidency.  You will recall that some felt President Bush was too chummy with some Christian leaders who advocated Apocalypse sooner rather than later.  Some media speculated whether Bush's lack of interest in getting worked up about the environment had anything to do with these Apocalypse now preachers.

Still aren't they just doing what II Peter suggests?  "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief & and the elements will be dissolved with fire &"  "Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening (there's a word to send us squirming) the coming of the day of God &"

Yes there are those out there in Christian churches who welcome the undoing of this world as they "wait (not so patiently) for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home."  And they may be not far down the street either.

Was "dominion theology" at play in the decisions or lack of environmental attention of W.'s administration?  Just one of the many things about which I have no idea, but we should be aware that this view is out there and that some who believe it may hope to shape the world so to bring about the end of it - that is - the world.  It is that "hastening" thing that worries me.

This is why I have gone to some length to make you aware of a perspective, and the biblical basis for it, before I share a more hopeful way for humans to understand their place in the world among plants and other animals.

Whose world is it anyway?  This question has roots far more practical and down to earth than theological and "pie in the sky."  Next week we will listen to what some other ancient voices have to say about it, consider another part of Genesis which puts humans more in the middle of things than on top, and then hopefully come to a conclusion that encourages the survival of us all.

This is how I see it in the middle of a question which should catch our attention in spite of the distractions of this time of the year.  Amen.