The Earth Is The Lord's ... And Don't You Forget It!
Stories
Lectionary Tales for the Pulpit
Series VI, Cycle B
Object:
Of course, we do forget it ... regularly. In 1962, Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring,1 caught the nation's attention as it pointed out what was happening to the environment by our continued use of DDT and other pesticides. The following year, President Kennedy and Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson led a cross-country tour to further highlight the environmental crisis. Speech after speech warned that air and water pollution, species extinction, and pesticide poisoning were threats to our nation's future. But the president later complained to the senator that the press only seemed interested in stories about national defense or power politics and couldn't care less about the environment. It was that experience, Nelson said, that led him to organize the first Earth Day eight years later.2 Those were the days of heightening opposition to the Vietnam War with "teach-ins" on college campuses everywhere. The first Earth Day built on that teach-in model to highlight what was happening with our air and water.
It was well received and marked the beginning of two decades of slow yet steady progress in environmental consciousness and protective legislation. Because of emission control laws the air quality in our cities improved dramatically. Many lakes and rivers are cleaner and safer today than they were back then. And an entire generation of children has grown up with a deeper appreciation for how fragile and vulnerable our ecosystem actually is.
Some of the improvements came, not because of environmental sensitivity, but simply because of money (something that has long been known as a powerful motivator). For example, do you remember the gas crisis of the early '70s? Many of us well recall the three- and four-hour waits we had to endure just to fill up our tanks, all because the Middle Eastern oil producers slowed production to force prices up. To protect us from being held hostage to foreign interests like that again, our government instituted some strict standards to increase fuel efficiency of automobiles, reduce consumption and our dependence on foreign oil. As you recall, the auto industry screamed bloody murder and said they would go broke if these standards were not relaxed, but as we know, that was a lie and the auto industry has not been forced to hold any bake sales to fund their operations anywhere in the world.
As a matter of fact, the car companies did have some money to use for lobbyists, and they used it. Because the new standards did indeed make production more expensive, they lobbied to have them relaxed, regardless of whether or not that would make us vulnerable again. Now, before you jump on the wicked and heartless auto manufacturers, remember their job is not to encourage energy conservation; their job is to make a profit. They cannot be blamed for their position. And no one would be blamed in this if ... and this is a huge if ... if the government had stood its ground and kept the standards in place. But it did not. In 1986, as a favor to both Detroit and big oil, the standards for fuel efficiency were rolled back, and that was too bad. According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, the non-profit energy research organization, if the United States had continued to conserve oil at the rate that we did in the late '70s and early '80s, we would have no longer needed Persian Gulf oil after 1986.3
No question, conservation is an important environmental issue, but in terms of our theme -- "The earth is the Lord's and everything in it" (v. 1) -- even more important is pollution. No question, we have made improvements. After that first Earth Day in 1970, Republicans and Democrats, working together, created the Environmental Protection Agency and passed 28 major laws over the next ten years to protect our air, water, endangered species, wetlands, and food. Those who would use our air and our water would have to deal with any impact they made, and polluters would be held accountable. Unfortunately, many of those protections have been weakened in recent years, and unless a fresh political wind begins to blow, we will all pay the price for it. This is not the issue of one party or another -- national polls consistently show that over 80% of all Americans, Republicans and Democrats, want our environmental laws strong and strictly enforced. Besides, we remember that old Native American proverb that reminds us that we do not inherit the land from our parents, we borrow it from our children. And as our lesson reminds us, "The earth is the Lord's and everything in it...." Be careful!
Perhaps the solution to this problem of pollution is as simple as what we learned from our mothers and fathers -- you make a mess, you clean it up. Do not expect someone else to do it. You make a mess, you clean it up. If the mess you make is a result of your manufacturing process, you build in the cost of cleaning up the mess when you set your prices. If you want to keep all the money from the sale of your product, make sure you bear all the cost of manufacturing. If you would rather not handle the cleanup yourself, fine, then arrange to pay someone else to do it. This is simple free market capitalism. The only time government would have to get involved would be if your mess was so damaging to the environment that it could not be cleaned up, and the damage was permanent. Then you would have to find a new way of doing business for the good of everyone. That seems fair, doesn't it?
A special love of the earth is a central pillar of certain ancient religions, but it has never figured prominently in Western Christianity. In a way, that could be surprising. Our scripture begins with the story of creation and the affirmation that the Creator made it all good. Then we read that humanity was created and was given "dominion" ... to use the old King James language ... "dominion" over creation.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
-- Genesis 1:26-28
That is pretty straightforward. Humanity is placed in the role of middle management. Does that mean we are free to do anything we want? There is some disagreement on that.
Of course, there is a second creation story in Genesis that follows immediately after the first. This one comes from another source and also talks about the creation of humanity. But this one, instead of saying human beings are in charge, says, "The Lord God took the man [adam which is the Hebrew word for "man," not a proper name] and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it" (Genesis 2:15).
So which is it? To rule or to take care of it? Why not both? Why not use our intelligence and scientific knowledge, not simply to do what we want when we want just because we want, but to make this little globe that we borrow better for all of us, all more than six-billion human beings plus lots of other plant and animal life? We certainly have the ability. But with it comes responsibility because, like it or not, we are in this together. An old Jewish proverb tells of a man in a boat who began to bore a hole under his seat. When his fellow passengers asked him what he was doing, he answered, "What do you care? I am only boring under my seat."
Sooner or later, we will all get caught up in the environmental movement because sooner or later we will all get hurt by what is happening to nature. The question is what kind of world will be waiting for our grandchildren when they come of age? Will we have to tell them about whales because there are none for them to see? Will there be no more mountain gorillas in Africa? Will the singing birds be gone from the trees? And in the midst of those questions is one that gets to the heart of the issue: What is so important for me to have that I am willing to sacrifice the future of my children and grandchildren in order to get it? Anything?
Then I read the words of the psalmist one more time: "The earth is the Lord's and everything in it...." Oops. I will try not to forget that.
____________
1. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Riverside Press, 1962).
2. Robert Kennedy Jr., Crimes Against Nature (New York: HarperCollins, 2004), p. 175.
3. Ibid, p. 108.
It was well received and marked the beginning of two decades of slow yet steady progress in environmental consciousness and protective legislation. Because of emission control laws the air quality in our cities improved dramatically. Many lakes and rivers are cleaner and safer today than they were back then. And an entire generation of children has grown up with a deeper appreciation for how fragile and vulnerable our ecosystem actually is.
Some of the improvements came, not because of environmental sensitivity, but simply because of money (something that has long been known as a powerful motivator). For example, do you remember the gas crisis of the early '70s? Many of us well recall the three- and four-hour waits we had to endure just to fill up our tanks, all because the Middle Eastern oil producers slowed production to force prices up. To protect us from being held hostage to foreign interests like that again, our government instituted some strict standards to increase fuel efficiency of automobiles, reduce consumption and our dependence on foreign oil. As you recall, the auto industry screamed bloody murder and said they would go broke if these standards were not relaxed, but as we know, that was a lie and the auto industry has not been forced to hold any bake sales to fund their operations anywhere in the world.
As a matter of fact, the car companies did have some money to use for lobbyists, and they used it. Because the new standards did indeed make production more expensive, they lobbied to have them relaxed, regardless of whether or not that would make us vulnerable again. Now, before you jump on the wicked and heartless auto manufacturers, remember their job is not to encourage energy conservation; their job is to make a profit. They cannot be blamed for their position. And no one would be blamed in this if ... and this is a huge if ... if the government had stood its ground and kept the standards in place. But it did not. In 1986, as a favor to both Detroit and big oil, the standards for fuel efficiency were rolled back, and that was too bad. According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, the non-profit energy research organization, if the United States had continued to conserve oil at the rate that we did in the late '70s and early '80s, we would have no longer needed Persian Gulf oil after 1986.3
No question, conservation is an important environmental issue, but in terms of our theme -- "The earth is the Lord's and everything in it" (v. 1) -- even more important is pollution. No question, we have made improvements. After that first Earth Day in 1970, Republicans and Democrats, working together, created the Environmental Protection Agency and passed 28 major laws over the next ten years to protect our air, water, endangered species, wetlands, and food. Those who would use our air and our water would have to deal with any impact they made, and polluters would be held accountable. Unfortunately, many of those protections have been weakened in recent years, and unless a fresh political wind begins to blow, we will all pay the price for it. This is not the issue of one party or another -- national polls consistently show that over 80% of all Americans, Republicans and Democrats, want our environmental laws strong and strictly enforced. Besides, we remember that old Native American proverb that reminds us that we do not inherit the land from our parents, we borrow it from our children. And as our lesson reminds us, "The earth is the Lord's and everything in it...." Be careful!
Perhaps the solution to this problem of pollution is as simple as what we learned from our mothers and fathers -- you make a mess, you clean it up. Do not expect someone else to do it. You make a mess, you clean it up. If the mess you make is a result of your manufacturing process, you build in the cost of cleaning up the mess when you set your prices. If you want to keep all the money from the sale of your product, make sure you bear all the cost of manufacturing. If you would rather not handle the cleanup yourself, fine, then arrange to pay someone else to do it. This is simple free market capitalism. The only time government would have to get involved would be if your mess was so damaging to the environment that it could not be cleaned up, and the damage was permanent. Then you would have to find a new way of doing business for the good of everyone. That seems fair, doesn't it?
A special love of the earth is a central pillar of certain ancient religions, but it has never figured prominently in Western Christianity. In a way, that could be surprising. Our scripture begins with the story of creation and the affirmation that the Creator made it all good. Then we read that humanity was created and was given "dominion" ... to use the old King James language ... "dominion" over creation.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
-- Genesis 1:26-28
That is pretty straightforward. Humanity is placed in the role of middle management. Does that mean we are free to do anything we want? There is some disagreement on that.
Of course, there is a second creation story in Genesis that follows immediately after the first. This one comes from another source and also talks about the creation of humanity. But this one, instead of saying human beings are in charge, says, "The Lord God took the man [adam which is the Hebrew word for "man," not a proper name] and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it" (Genesis 2:15).
So which is it? To rule or to take care of it? Why not both? Why not use our intelligence and scientific knowledge, not simply to do what we want when we want just because we want, but to make this little globe that we borrow better for all of us, all more than six-billion human beings plus lots of other plant and animal life? We certainly have the ability. But with it comes responsibility because, like it or not, we are in this together. An old Jewish proverb tells of a man in a boat who began to bore a hole under his seat. When his fellow passengers asked him what he was doing, he answered, "What do you care? I am only boring under my seat."
Sooner or later, we will all get caught up in the environmental movement because sooner or later we will all get hurt by what is happening to nature. The question is what kind of world will be waiting for our grandchildren when they come of age? Will we have to tell them about whales because there are none for them to see? Will there be no more mountain gorillas in Africa? Will the singing birds be gone from the trees? And in the midst of those questions is one that gets to the heart of the issue: What is so important for me to have that I am willing to sacrifice the future of my children and grandchildren in order to get it? Anything?
Then I read the words of the psalmist one more time: "The earth is the Lord's and everything in it...." Oops. I will try not to forget that.
____________
1. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Riverside Press, 1962).
2. Robert Kennedy Jr., Crimes Against Nature (New York: HarperCollins, 2004), p. 175.
3. Ibid, p. 108.
