John Zylstra

In the context you are indicating, I wonder if perhaps the biggest benefit of the confessions, is to use them as a way of teaching about scripture.  In other words, the confessions are really about scripture;  they do not exist unto themselves.   Often we seem to go the other way around, to use scripture as a way of justifying or defending the confessions;  many people would want to bypass this approach, since ultimately the confessions themselves are not the issue.   They want to get directly to what scripture says about God, about Jesus, and about their relationship to God.  The confessions help in this, but are not an end in themselves.  

So what is a Christian's perspective on caring for creation?   First, I would say that creation by its very name honors God as the creator.   Second, Creation is not an accident, but has a purpose.   Third, people were created to have a relationship with the rest of creation, in a very special way.   It is a gift to us to be able to live in it, to enjoy it, to use it.   As such, a gift given by God should be treated as a gift.   This gift is also the means by which God provides us our daily life.   Rejecting or mistreating creation is a way of rejecting the life God has given us on this globe.   Fourth, we should not honor this creation for its own sake, nor worship it, nor assume that God gave us a weak, cheap, vulnerable world, or an inadequate world to live in.  We can see that this world continues to provide amazing resources as our eyes continue to open when we live in it.   We can see that we are pretty small compared to the amazing things that happen in this world, whether it is snow covered mountains, huge icebergs, giant rivers, tsunamis, volcanoes, hurricanes and tornadoes.  But we can also see that we have some impact on water quality, air quality, species habitat, diseases, weeds, resource extraction, and innovative ingenuity.   The invention of the lightbulb, extraction of oil and shale gas, invention of computers, GPS, steam engines, petri dishes, anti-biotics, and plasma tvs are only a few examples of things that people in the past did not have nor understand, and it is likely that we will continue to discover and utilize things that are presently barely imagined.   The gift of creation that God gave us, seems to be getting bigger and better all the time, and such a gift is not yet limited by our imagination.   But denying it is a gift, by mistreating it,  will reduce its potential.

Beyond this basic understanding, we then begin to debate some of the details. 

 

Following is the link to the article written by John Cotter.   The article is actually found in several media outlets, particularly Vancouver Sun and other B.C. papers. 

http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/money/pulpits+and+the+pipeline+more+churches+speaking+out+on+northern+gateway+project/6442692223/story.html 

God is Jehovah, Jahweh, Jhvh.  "I am that I am".   

We are man, Adam, of the earth.   Created by Jahweh.   In the image of "I am that I am."    Not identical to. 

Wendy, well, what about focusing on differences?   What does that mean?  I think that if we understand our basic paradigm, then differences will be easier to deal with.   But we should probably not look at them as "our" differences.   They are simply different perspectives, different theories, different knowledge bases, and different conclusions about how we care for creation.   There are different theories about summerfallow, for example, both based on caring for  creation, but with different perspective on what that means.  There are theories about "tillage", but different understanding on what that means.  There are theories about species extinction, about conserving nature, about climate change, about recycling, etc.   There is no way of making progress on these things without focussing on different theories and approaches.   It is in the struggle itself, that knowledge arises and becomes refined.   It is in the struggle itself that new innovations appear, that new technology develops, that more correct approaches develop.   The struggle is not bad; in fact it is necessary.   What is bad is diverting the struggle by attributing divergent motives, or personal invectives, or deficient intellect, or premature conclusions.  But probably you are right.   It is probably not good for the church as institution to focus on the differences, but instead to emphasize the basic paradigm.   Individuals within the church as the body of Christ can operate within society to concentrate on the differences, in order to refine and develop the details of how to care for creation most appropriately.   It is not good for the institution to assume that there is only one way of doing that, and that our knowledge will not change in the future.   

Steve, I appreciate the attempt by Christians to apply Christian principles to all of life, to all activities we engage in.  Good motives. 

 But as Christians, we are as susceptible as anyone to simply following non-Christian agendas and cloaking it with Christian icing on the cake.  That is where we need to be discerning. 

 

In this case, you mentioned “ecology, climate, economic expansion and resource development, solidarity with Indigenous peoples, appropriate democratic and environmental review process” and kind of lumped them together as justification for churches being involved.  Then you suggest that speaking on these issues relative to the pipeline does not make you an expert.  You suggest that the church is merely applying theology to the real world.  And that if this does not inpsire action, then you suggest there is no value to faith in God, especially to a reformed faith. 

 

You have raised a lot of issues, and so I will respond only in brief to some of them.  First, the importance and value of our faith in God is much larger than our response to a pipeline.  Further, how do you distinguish the christian response, from the Sierra Club response?  Does the Sierra Club or greenpeace response thereby automatically make them Christians too? 

 

I have conversations with some aboriginals occasionally, and in the case of the pipelines it seems that there is a divergence of views with aboriginals.  In many cases, they get manipulated by extreme environmentalists, and have an eye on the possibility of compensation (we won’t call it bribes), as well as possible work.  Yes ecology is important to aboriginals as it is to all of us, but their primary concern is usually housing and food, and potential economic benefits. 

 

Aboriginals on reserves presently don’t pay income tax nor property tax while on the reserves, unless they work off the reserves.  They have a multitude of national and provincial benefits at no cost.  They feel they have a right to it, but it also takes them out of their ecology; this support from Canada means that they do not depend on the ecology for their living.  Nor do most aboriginals interact with their ecology as they did four hundred years ago, not even as two hundred years ago.  Most simply do not have the knowledge to survive in that environment.  For that reason, they also depend on industry, modern machines and modern processing and retail, and on government dollars, for their living. 

 

What makes Kairos or the united church or the crc church an expert on an appropriate environmental review process, as distinguished from unnecessary and costly duplication of regulations and inspections?  How can a review process be democratic; doesn’t that remove the science and objectivity from it?  

 

What does Kairos know about the quality of pipelines being built today, compared to pipelines built fifty years ago?  Does Kairos know there is already an oil pipeline to Vancouver, B.C.?  Does Kairos know there are already pipelines to the West Coast for natural gas? 

 

It seems to me that this issue is a political one, used as a pin-prick towards the larger issue of whether we should use fossil fuels at all for our daily life.   That larger issue will not be solved by fighting a pipeline or making a pipeline more costly. 

 

When Christians become overly involved in these issues under the banner of christianity and church, they run the risk of being manipulated by the opponents in the larger discussion.  They might be manipulated by the environmentalists who have the agenda of raising funds to fight the big corporations.  They might be manipulated or “used” by the environmentalists who are being used by certain oil refinery companies to delay or hinder the export of oil to China, and thus retain a captive supply and lower price for Canadian oil in the USA.  And christians also run the risk of having their main gospel neglected, both because of lack of focus, and because of the likelihood that they are wrong, or on the wrong side of an issue.  

 

I agree the economy is not the only important thing to us.  The environment, and the social aspect are also very important.  But is finding the balance between environment, economy, and social goals, in the expertise of the institutional church?  What happens when a church “speaks” for its members, and many members do not agree?  Is that democratic?  What if the church misleads its members due to its lack of balance and perspective and lack of expertise?    

Dale Poel, I don't think you have made your point very well.   Why is the church obligated to formulate a position on public policy?   How is the role of the church related to the common good?   Whose "common good"?   Is the church's role to speak to the tragedy of the commons?  based on what rationale?   Is the church's role to promote "common grace"?   or is it to use "common grace" to highlight the love and mercy of God? 

The problem with things like pipelines, is that they become political footballs of the environmentalists and those who hope to profit from them, including governments, landowners, aboriginals, and industry shareholders.   By getting overly involved with these things as an institutional church, we are deluded into thinking we are going to "save" the world.   We won't you know.  And even if we did, we fall into the trap of saving the world and losing our souls.  

So yes, as Christians, we must be honest and responsible and careful of God's creation, but the simplistic answers often provided make demons out of honest effort and ignore the real demons that divert us from our relationship to God. 

Here is my perspective as a Christian on this pipeline.   A pipeline should be built as well as it can be so that it does not leak.  A pipeline is a better alternative, using less energy to transport oil, gas, or water, than transport by truck or train.  A pipeline thus produces less ghg in the long term.  This pipeline is using dramatically improved technology compared to pipelines built fifty years ago.  A pipeline should have a good monitoring, inspection, replacement, and emergency shutdown system.  It should have an excellent cleanup and remediation program associated with it. 

 As a Christian, I do not believe that the physical environment in which we live is somehow more significant than the fact that we live in it.  What that means is that I believe people have been given the right and responsibility to make changes to the environment, and that the environment does not have a soul.  It does not make independent decisions about itself, and it does not engage in introspection.  Thus our view of the environment is shaped by who we are, and by our education and our experiences. 

 The environment in which we live, requires us to adapt to conditions, since it is mostly either too cold, or too wet, or too hot or too dry, for us to live in it without producing food, building homes, travelling, trading food with others, irrigating, building boats, finding shade, or wearing warm clothes in winters.  Whether we use fossil fuels, or burn trees for heat, or feed oxen or fuel tractors for planting and harvesting, or whether we make concrete or lumber for homes, we will affect our environment in dramatic ways.  It is inevitable. 

We did not create the world, but we create or change our environment in many ways, through using umbrellas, forced air heating, air conditioning in cars, insulated winter boots, planting trees or building pools or seaside vacations.  Therefore the question is never whether a particular fossil fuel is good or bad by itself.  The question is what is the alternative, and will this alternative create poverty and suffering or will it provide an enhanced daily environment for the people in this world. 

 Fossil fuels allow us to print bibles, operate the internet, build computers, transport bibles to mission fields, bring food to the hungry, keep the poor warm, and keep the water in the baptismal fount from freezing.   Could we do this without fossil fuels?  And without making the poor in this world hungry?  If better alternatives come along, then I have no doubt we will use them.  We are looking intently for better alternatives already today.  But we should look for better alternatives without demonizing the blessings of what we have today.