It's a bit late to ask, but tomorrow morning early I'll be speaking with J. Matthew Sleeth, author of Serve God, Save the Planet, a book calling on Christians to renew their responsibility as stewards of the earth.
What should I ask him?
Here's what Sleeth has to say about his personal transition:
When God called me to this creation care ministry, I was a physician - chief of staff and head of the emergency department at one of the nicest hospitals in America. I enjoyed my job, my colleagues, my expensive home, my fast car, and my big paycheck. I have since given up every one of these things.
We now live in a house the exact size of our old garage. We use less than one-third of the fossil fuels and one-quarter of the electricity we once used. We’ve gone from leaving two barrels of trash by the curb each week to leaving one bag every few weeks. We no longer own a clothes dryer, garbage disposal, dishwasher, or lawn mower. Our “yard†is planted with native wildflowers and a large vegetable garden. Half of our possessions have found new homes. We are a poster family for the downwardly mobile.
What my family and I have gained in exchange is a life richer in meaning than I could have imagined. Because of these changes, we have more time for God. Spiritual concerns have filled the void left by material ones. Owning fewer things has resulted in things no longer owning us. We have put God to the test, and we have found his Word to be true. He has poured blessings and opportunities upon us. When we stopped living a life dedicated to consumerism, our cup began to run over.
Pretty impressive.
Comments
View as Flat
MJohnson Posted 12:54 pm
14 Sep 2006
"According to the dispensationalist end-times model favored by many evangelicals, the earth's fate is complete destruction in the not too distant future. Since, in this view, destruction is God's plan and is inevitable, it is to be accepted and even anticipated; environmental, social, and spiritual consequences of technology are interpreted as precursors of the coming destruction." ....
An alternative "end-times" view explained by the authors: "holds that instead of creation's destruction and subsequent replacement by a pristine new heaven and new earth, corruption will be removed."
Does he also have an alternative take on the book of Revelations?
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 2:57 pm
14 Sep 2006
Q: Does you have any suggestions for better communication between environmentalists and his tradition of Christianity? What common areas are there?
Q: Are there any sore points that people should be respectful of? For example are there ways in which environmentalists may inadvertently give offense?
Q: What could environmentalists do better? What could people in your tradition do better?
Q: What was it that caused you to make the changes described in the book?
Thank you,
Bart Anderson
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:54 pm
14 Sep 2006
Anyway, here is a question you might ask. The term "pro-life" is often used by many Catholics, including those in the most prominent positions of authority, and perhaps by some other Christians as well, to refer to some basic ethic of loving care for living beings, specifically human living beings. In fact, these people tend to emphasize a very small number of causes: opposition to women's reproductive rights, including artificial contraception and abortion, opposition to in-vitro fertilization, opposition to embryonic-stem-cell research, opposition to physician-assisted suicide, opposition to the withdrawal of various forms of life support from patients near death or in death-like states, opposition to equal rights for homosexuals. Other Catholics have tried to include as "pro-life" values a small number of other issues, including most notably opposition to capital punishment, and opposition to such unjust wars as the 3/2003 invasion of Iraq; but those in favor of the first group of causes have been plainly dismissive of the latter suggestions. Sadly, this seems to reflect the more general social and political polarization of the US today.
And so: What would it take to get the proponents of the "pro-life" ethic to adopt certain values of great importance to environmentalists? These include alarm regarding the global warming crisis, a global decrease in the emission of green-house gases, a global decrease in the various forms of pollution, and the conservation of biodiversity, especially the preservation of endangered species. Why should these not be regarded as "pro-life" values, seeing that so much of life on earth, including humankind, depends on their being effectively acted on?
Of course, if I were doing the interview, I would throw in something about animal rights too. But you are the man in charge, and you are far wiser than I, and no doubt you will wisely choose to proceed little by little.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink