"Frederick Burroughs" wrote in message
...
Frank Bell wrote:

There's the Garden of Eden, from where man was banished. There's
dominion over the earth and its creatures, ranking the environment
subordinate to man. There's the idea that Jesus can multiply fish and
bread from thin air to feed the masses. Jesus was a carpenter and hung
on a wooden cross, placing forest products in a strict utilitarian
context. There's raising the dead and reincarnation, which implies a
spiritual violation and divorce of spirit from the natural order of
things. There's the whole famine, plague, flood thing of environment
as antagonist.

Then there's the idea of hell being a volcanic, subterranean realm in
earthly bowels made of fire and brimstone. I don't know if that last
idea is in the bible, but it is certainly popular among Christians.
The point is the earth is not a happy place for Christians, and their
ultimate goal is to reach somewhere better. For Christians, the earth
is a stepping stone, a place of trials and tribulations, and in whose
bosom lay the fire and brimstone of eternal damnation. The Bible, as
used and interpreted by the majority of Christian fundamentalists, is
not a model of environmental stewardship.




OK, I'm gonna debate ya on this a little, although I certainly don't
share
Larry's perspective. I think you're stretching with your "Bible as
Anti-Environment" thesis. For starters, while the Bible does assign man
the
role of master over the creatures and lands of the Earth, it explicitly
charges him to PROTECT creation, not destroy it. And harvesting it for
man's use does not equate to destruction; I don't think anybody would say
that fishing or hunting equates to environmental destruction. Of course,
like any activities, you have the good along with the bad- for every kid
with a fishing pole on a quiet northern lake, there's a trawler with a
drag
net wreaking havoc on marine environments. I'm not sure how you can say
that Jesus as a carpenter is a sign that the Bible is anti-environment;
one
of my best paddling buddies is a finishing carpenter. For that matter,
aren't his wooden canoes just as "utilitarian" as a wooden cross?
Famine,
plague, and antagonists? Remember the tsunami thing that several of our
friends in Asia recently dealt with? I suspect they would agree that
nature
is indeed an antagonist at times! Treating nature as antagonist is one
thing; destroying it to further your own interests entirely something
different.

Is earth a place of trials and tribulations? Sure. If you're leading a
life *without* trials and/or tribulations, please share your experiences-
I
bet you're the only one in that position :-) Why is Earth as a place of
trial a bad thing? I endure the "trial" of whitewater whenever I can,
and
believe me, there are many rapids that I view as being antagonistic,
almost
malevolent! But trials and adversity are not bad; they give you the
chance
to stand tall. I believe that is the true function of creation as
described
in the Bible- a place to rise above trials and tribulation, a place to
meet
those challenges and succeed! If others view the trials and tribulations
of
life on earth as an enemy rather than a spiritual refining process, that
would be their failing, IMO.

I certainly agree that there is some movement in the Christian right to
treat the enviroment like a big cookie jar, but that really isn't the
fault
of the Bible or it's writers. I would opine that that is more indicative
of
Christian fundamentalists failure to understand God's desire that man act
as
a steward of the environment. Personally, I believe that Christian
fundamentalists fail to understand God's instructions in more areas than
just environmental stewardship, but that's a whole different story.


The examples I used illustrate the idea of man's subjugation of nature.
Many Christians believe in a spiritual hierarchy; man is above the animals
(nature) and God and the angels are above man. Indeed, Satan, who was
God's favorite angel, upon thinking himself the equal of God was cast from
heaven into hell (earth?). Or, so the story goes.

The contention isn't that the Bible is anti-environment. Rather, the
Christian belief of earth/nature as a couple notches below some lofty,
heavenly ideal is not pro-environment. It's as if earth/nature is a kind
of waiting room, or queue or elevator before entering into the kingdom of
heaven.

Jesus multiplied fish and loaves. This doesn't happen in the real world
without serious consequences. I recently posted a story about the
environmental effects of fish farming. You can see satellite photos of
rain forest deforestation by slash and burn to clear cattle pastures. Old
growth forest continue to decline, other forested lands have been replaced
with commercial monoculture forests. The natural environment can indeed be
antagonistic, but the Bible uses these as examples of God's wrath and
punishment for man's digressions.

There was a brief, almost tenderly naive period of popular
environmentalism during the activist '60s. Joni Mitchell, in her
dedication to the times, says in "Woodstock," "We've got to get ourselves
back to the Garden." The sentiment that we can get back to the Garden has
been misplaced and forgotten.

Some of the writings of Naturalists, Thoreau, Abbey, Craig Childs, etc.
are among the most beautiful, evocative and inspiring writings I have ever
read. Nature is a place of deep spirit. Our boats may be wood or petroleum
based, but they express a sense of conservation. A river can evoke a
timelessness. Nature comes across, through and reflected back upon us. We
see through fresh eyes and breath moist air, like being born again.




Theology comes in all flavors and sizes, but the idea that 'nature is there
to be used' is not uncommon. The concept of stewardship, to many, implies
having your hands on every aspect: I don't know a single forester who does
not believe that managed forests is not good stewardship. In fact, every
forester I know (coming from Maine, thats not a few) believes that hands-on
forestry is far superior to just letting the forests be. In their eyes, a
monocultural stand of identical Spruce trees, all in a row, without any
Budworm or disease is far superior to the same mountain side covered with
diverse species, with all the undergrowth and rot and natural disease. Its
not at all unlike the BLM under Floyd Dominy stating that undammed rivers
were just 'going to waste'.

It has taken 30 years and untold amounts of effort for the legitimacy of
free-flowing rivers to be re-established (it was quite well established
before industrialization rearranged and redefined 'natural resources'). I
fear we are facing an even larger battle for the idea of free-standing
forests to regain legitimacy. Not every Tom Dick and Harry can go out and
dam a river, but every landholder can go out with a chainsaw and 'improve'
their tree lot. And make some money while they are at it.

Currently, 'natural resources' are seen as a bank account, not an end it
itself. Whereas, in the past, national parks and national forests were seen
as preserves of 'the way it used to be', now they are seen as deposits of
trees, oil, minerals and water in a pretty wrapping, waiting for the right
time to be extracted. And current laws and legislation are being written
with precisely that view in mind. Get the resources out before we grand
national forest or national park status to the wrapper.

--riverman