“These refer to things that are intended to be used up and perish.”

In the passage Paul is referring to “ascetic” injunctions concerning fasting, various uses of food and so on, that unbelievers and Judaizers alike sought to impose upon Christians. Paul would have us refuse to follow them. So, in passing—as I indicated above—he says that the things that the world holds sacred, to the Christian, are but items that God has provided for our use. His point is that when they are “used up” that’s OK (assuming they were used in a responsible manner). It is no great tragedy to deplete the supply of fossil fuels, for a species of unusual fish to become extinct, or for the wolves to be banned from lands where they attack and destroy herds of cattle and sheep.

“But that is a tragedy,” says someone. “After all, once they are gone—“used up” as your apostle put it—they are gone forever. To lose an animal species or a rainforest is to have suffered an irreparable loss!”

Yes, in that objection, you detect quite a different philosophy of existence. Christians should expect outcries from environmentalists about oil drilling in the Arctic, logging in the West, the use of SUVs on our highways, and similar human activities that they believe will noticeably affect the environment. Such objections to these activities are perfectly in accord with the one-world view of the non-Christian. He would be inconsistent to his basic philosophy of existence if he didn’t raise an outcry.

“What, then, are you saying,” asks a Christian?

Simply this. The unbeliever has but one world. He knows nothing of another world to come. He clings to every aspect of the present world‘s assets because, as he believes, once they “perish” they are gone forever. No wonder he goes to lengths to preserve all that he can. But the Christian looks forward to a new heaven and a new earth that will be so far superior to the present one that he cannot stake everything on what now exists. He looks on the present world as a marvelous creation, in which God had provided all things for us to use and enjoy now—insofar as we can since it is under the curse of sin. Because of that curse, however, nothing will remain forever. Indeed, the book of Ecclesiastes was written to point out that nothing is permanent. And, in that book, like Paul, Solomon tells us to enjoy what we can so long as we are here and the deteriorating world in which we live continues as it is. The clash in opinions that occurs over various environmental issues is, in reality, a clash of a one-world and a two-world view of existence.

The post Environmental Extremism: A One World View appeared first on Institute for Nouthetic Studies | Biblical Counseling.

I will not drive them [the peoples living in Canaan] out before you in a single year. That the land may not become desolate, and the beasts of the field become too numerous for you.
Exodus 23:29; see also Deuteronomy 7:22

Recently, there was an account of the eleven-year-old child of a family camping in Utah that was dragged out of their tent and eaten by a bear. The bear, we are told, actually tore open the side of the tent in order to get to him. In a TV interview in which this incident was discussed, a naturalist attempted to make a case that this was the fault of human beings that must bear [no pun intended] the ultimate responsibility for what occurred. He contended—with some plausibility—that by bringing food into wilderness areas campers have conditioned bears to search for food where people are. That may, I say, be true. But the intimation in his remarks was that people should leave the bears to their own territory and not invade their space. In other words—get out and stay out.

Now, this attitude on the part of some environmentalists, and particularly those among the animal “rights” crowd, is not new. In many ways—from the issues over the snail darter to the introduction of wolves into the countryside—they have made their preference clear. Given the choice, they prefer animals to human being! Many of those who would go to great lengths to “save the whales” also may be found among the most vociferous advocates of “women’s rights.” The aborting of babies is preferred to the killing of animals.

But from the outset, God has shown us otherwise. In the Garden of Eden, it was He Who made garments of animal skin for Adam (Genesis 3:21). Had there been no sin, animal death might not have been necessary, but afterwards, in a fallen world, there would be the necessity of choosing between the animal creation and the creation of man. Man, who was created in the image of God at a separate creation that singled out his special nature among all of the creatures that God made (Genesis 1:26), was not only to occupy and fill the entire earth, but to subdue it (Genesis 1:28), thus bringing about an order in which he was to be God’s delegated ruler of the earth. Man, clearly, was to rule over the animals (Genesis 1:28).

Indeed, along with plague, famine and war, wild beasts attacking human beings is clearly specified by God as one of His “four severe judgments” upon man (Ezekiel 14:21). Unwittingly, modern activists welcome such judgment upon themselves—as well as the rest of us. Whenever man acts against God’s will, he brings judgment upon himself. In the modern reversal of biblically-stated values and order that pervades our godless, rebellious society (as evidenced in this man versus animal issue) we see again the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God at odds.

In the verses concerning the Israelite conquest of Canaan, God makes it clear that when it comes to a choice between man and beast as occupants of a particular territory, the wild animal must give way to man. The occupation was to take place gradually so that there would be less likelihood of events like that which occurred in Utah. Territory already cleared of wild animals should not be allowed to revert to once more become their domain. Plainly, such animals must give way to the migration and occupation of human beings. To allow them to multiply beyond reasonably safe limits, or to reintroduce them into territory that human beings already inhabit, is decidedly wrong. God, Himself, has made the choice—and it falls on the side of His special creation.

So, when your people inquire about such matters, as a pastor or elder you ought to be able to turn to such passages as those mentioned to help them acquire a perspective other than that which they are fed ad nauseum by pundits pontificating their godless values on television.

The post Man and Beast appeared first on Institute for Nouthetic Studies | Biblical Counseling.