The Gospel follow-up
Lots of emphasis on reconciliation with regard to "the gospel." I have preached that that is likely the best picture of atonement to our contemporary society. However, my own opinion remains that the announcement "Jesus is Lord" is "the gospel." Everything else must be developed from this good news.
But as to how it relates to environmentalism, I am still stumped. Not stumped in the sense that I don't know how people emphasize environmentalism--I reduce, reuse, and recycle!--in Christianity, but why this must be tied to "the gospel." I think a simple but firm creation theology gets you there and grounding it in resurrection might be unnecessary.
But as to how it relates to environmentalism, I am still stumped. Not stumped in the sense that I don't know how people emphasize environmentalism--I reduce, reuse, and recycle!--in Christianity, but why this must be tied to "the gospel." I think a simple but firm creation theology gets you there and grounding it in resurrection might be unnecessary.
posted by Aaron Perry at
8:23 PM
2 Comments:
Sorry buddy, but grounding creation theology in the resurrection is a (theo)logical implication of the claim, Jesus is Lord. Over what? If the answer is creation (and it is), you cannot conceive creation Christianly without seeing it in and through the lense provided by the exercise of lordship by the risen and ascended Christ.
I am convinced by your argument and would have to say that environmental stewardship is best grounded in resurrection, but I wonder if it is tied to a specific eschatology, and so would want to push back by asking if this is a necessary implication. In other words, is there a possible world in which the lordship of Jesus could end in the destruction of the world (as many believe it will)? And would Christians in this world be consistent in treating the world well based on Genesis 1-2? I think yes. Now this world may not be that world, but it's still possible.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home