6.5 Billion and Counting

J. Matthew Sleeth reviews Allan Carlson’s book, Fractured Generations: Crafting a Family Policy for Twenty-first Century America in his article, “6.5 Billion and Counting” in Books & Culture, March/April 2007, pages 36- 37. He is well aware of the toxic environment cause by too much: too much soot in the air and too many chemicals in the environment, and perhaps, too many people on the planet. Allan Carlson’s book is devoted to family policy issues and gives public policy suggestions in each chapter.

Most of those crying out the loudest, are claiming the major crisis being faced by the world today is overpopulation. Carlson, however, states that the major problem is depopulation, not overpopulation, and he fears that dwindling populations in developed countries will eventually cripple their economies. Sleeth, however, disagrees, saying that immigration from overpopulated countries to developed nations will most likely alleviate any economic problems caused by depopulation.

The major reason for the dramatic increase in population growth is due to the advances in medicine and the prolongation of life. Sleeth has an excellent illustration of the population growth of the world throughout history:

One way of visualizing the rate of population growth is to take all of mankind's history and place it on a 12-month "Big Calendar of History." January 1 stands for the year 8000 BC. Each "day" represents twenty-seven years. December 31 on the Big Calendar of History represents ad 2000. Some important "days" are circled. In July, people start writing, building libraries, and using iron tools. In September, Christ lives, dies, and is resurrected. December 24 is a big day. By now 98 percent of all human history has passed. On this day, the Census Bureau throws a party. Mankind has reached the one billion mark. On the 29th of December, we reach two billion. We add another billion on the 30th, and during the 31st we add a billion in the morning, another billion in the afternoon, and another billion before midnight.


According to Carlson, the main reason for smaller families in Western countries is the rejection of Christian values. He claims that religion is the number one factor in determining birth rates. “Declining birth rates are, in large part, the result of people turning away from Christian virtues like sacrifice, long-term commitment, altruism, and responsibility.” It is difficult to take this kind of reasoning seriously.

Carlson fears that underpopulation is real and that overpopulation is a lie invented by social engineers to advance their agenda. However, overpopulation and underpopulation are occurring at the same time. Underpopulation is a problem for specific countries while overpopulation is a global issue. There is no global shortage of people. There is a global shortage of the things necessary for each and every person on earth to live a full, meaningful life. There might be enough economic resources to support a growing population, but there aren’t enough environmental resources to support a population growing at its present rate.


You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/8.36.html

Feeling Green

Andy Crouch reviews the book, A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and Our Planet’s Future, by Roger S. Gottlieb, in his article, “Feeling Green” in Books & Culture, March/April 2007, pages 32-35. The role religious faith plays in the environmental movement is difficult to determine since there are so many different groups that are playing a role: Catholic, Evangelical, Buddhist, Jewish, Unitarian, Episcopalian, Wiccan, Sufi, Calvinist, Hindu, and more. Even among Evangelicals there is a lot of disagreement, as seen in the conflict between the Evangelical Climate Initiative and the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, as well as the pressure put on Ted Haggard when he was president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

There are sever reasons for this conflict within Evangelicalism over the environment: First, many evangelicals fear that “creation care” is a wedge issue designed to split the evangelical voters from their allegiance to the Republican party or a left-wing attempt to undermine free-enterprise and economic growth. Second, many fear that environmentalism is a thinly disguised pantheism that sees the earth as “God’s body” and human beings as parasitic parts of the evolutionary web of life.

There is always the danger of creating a policy that sounds good theoretically but is difficult to implement practically. Crouch quotes Gottlieb:

“Yet, many would argue, the very idea of cooperation with rather than domination over nature, though (perhaps) appealing in the abstract, is impossible in practice. Don't humans need to eat, build houses, and watch TV? Don't deep ecologists and ecofeminists use antibiotics to treat their kids' ear infections? And don't we all use computers and drive our cars? Isn't all of this talk of cooperating with nature simply an armchair philosophy that evaporates once we leave our armchairs and start to deal with real life?”

“These questions are not easily answered.”


While most of these questions are red herrings, designed to weaken the force of his opponents’ argument, it is difficult to see how the need for humans to eat can be explained as cooperating with nature. While the Christian tradition asks us to love our enemies, which is difficult, it is not logically impossible, and in fact, it has been done many times throughout history. But to not eat would be logically impossible for anyone to do.

According to Christian and Jewish tradition, man has been given dominion over creation, not to abuse it but to guard, protect and utilize it wisely as a stewardship. Man is the only species with the ability to do this and the only one that can feel guilt when it fails. Man has been created in the image of God and ordained by God as the steward of creation. Much of the foolishness propagated by some environmentalists is a rejection of this belief. By seeing animals and inanimate objects as merely “different” from human beings has resulted in most Christians being unable to work directly with most environmentalist groups.

Environmentalists like to evoke Native American religion as pure and eco-friendly while the historical truth is that it wasn’t as friendly to the environment as they think. Some even quote Chief Seattle as the ideal of an indigenous religious leader, failing to realize that often the words they quote were never spoken by him at all. In fact, much of what is quoted is from a time after he had already converted to Christianity. Evangelicalism has been very friendly to indigenous people and has interacted with them for centuries, as was the case with David Brainerd.

Some environmentalists have tried to put all religions, including Christianity, into one bag, thinking that doctrinal differences and historical perspectives are immaterial. This attitude makes it very difficult for most Evangelicals to cooperate with these groups. Christianity is not concerned merely with internal spiritual experiences but is committed to the historical veracity of the gospel events, which is why we celebrate Easter, Christmas and Communion. Christianity hinges on the truth of historical events and the claims of the particularity and exclusivity of Jesus. The Exodus, the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection are foundational to our faith, not mere individual experiences. Therefore, it is impossible to build a Christian environmental position that disregards these historical truths.

There is an environmentalism that is rooted in historical faith. Jesus modeled both feasting and fasting, abundance and simplicity. Christianity can, and must, speak to the present environmental situation, but it must do so in a way that honors and upholds its view of truth and reality.



You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/7.32.html

Global Warming

If you are interested in the issue of global warming, read this article by Regis Nicoll, "Some Inconvenient Truths: Global Warming and Al Gore's Film." If you have seen Al Gore’s docudrama An Inconvenient Truth, then you should interact with the points made by Nicoll.

As Christians we have been given stewardship of this planet and God expects us to use it wisely. We need to find a balance between worshiping nature and abusing nature. We have a responsibility to reduce pollution and save endangered species. However, we also must be wise and not allow ourselves to be manipulated or driven by hysteria.

Here is Regis Nicoll’s conclusion:

“Having said all this, let me add that I agree with many of the recommendations in An Inconvenient Truth. Recycling more, driving less, adjusting our thermostats, reducing consumables, planting trees, and the like, are the right things to do. All are in keeping with biblical stewardship, regardless of global warming.”


You can read this article at: http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6294