Matthew 25:31-46 - What we do for people matters (including those affected by climate change)

We can't just ignore the plight of people who will be impacted by climate change and environmental degradation. Matthew 25:31-46 doesn't give us that option. 

Matthew 25:31-46, I suspect, is a passage that we don't like to think about too much. It gets used when charities are trying to convince Christians to donate money or volunteer their time. But the focus seems to be very much on Matthew 25:45. We're more interested in giving ourselves a pat on the back for helping the hungry, the thirsty, the sick and imprisoned than we are about looking at what the whole passage actually means.

This passage shows us very clearly that what we do for other people matters. And it's not a case of just patting ourselves on the back when we do the right thing either. What we don't do matters too. Jesus says that what we do (or fail to do) for other people we do (or fail to do) for him. That in itself should make us take notice. But it's not like we just get a mild reprimand for failing to do the right thing either. Jesus says, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matthew 25:41). They're pretty strong words. They're not the kind of words that you can pretend just aren't that important.

So does that mean if we fail to sign up for hospital and prison visiting programs and donate money to every single organisation out there that feeds the hungry we're going to hell? Well, no. But at the same time, we also don't get to pretend that we can ignore the plight of other people. When we fail to help people who need help, we fail to help Jesus. And what we do to other people counts.

One thing I don't think Jesus was trying to do was give us a list of people who must be helped - with anyone who falls outside that list able to be ignored. He wasn't saying 'what you do for these people, you do for me'. Rather, he was saying, 'what you do for everyone, you do for me.' So it's not just our treatment of the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the naked, the sick and imprisoned that matters. Our treatment of the depressed, the grieving and the anxious matters. Our treatment of the unemployed, the disabled, the working poor and the socially isolated matters.

And our treatment of people who will be impacted by climate change and environmental degradation matters.

This doesn't just include people in countries like Tuvalu. It includes people in third world countries who are already struggling with the effects of climate change. It includes farmers in our own country who are finding things more difficult with changing climate conditions. It includes people who are being (or who will be) impacted by extreme weather conditions, which are predicted to increase as the climate changes. It includes future generations who have to live in the world we leave them. And ultimately it includes all of us - for we all will be impacted by climate change at some time.

We can't just ignore their plight. Matthew 25:31-46 doesn't give us that option. What we do (or fail to do) for these people, we fail (or fail to do) for Jesus. How we treat these people, whether we help them or not, matters in God's eyes.

Do we want to be the person to whom Jesus says, 'I was suffering from climate change and environmental degradation and you helped me,' or do we want to be the one to whom Jesus says, 'I was suffering from climate change and environmental degradation and not only didn't you help me, but you actually made my situation worse.'

Because that's what we're doing. Not only do we fail to help, we increase the problem. I can't read Matthew 25:31-46 and think that Jesus doesn't care.

Tweet

Special attachments to nature

Today I read an article that told me that the koala is highly vulnerable to climate change. This is according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Today and places it in a list of only 10 species in the world.

Koalas, people and climate change: not a good mix by Christine Adams-Hosking

I visit a lot of environmental sites and read a lot of environmental newsletters. So I'm used to hearing bad news. But this article hit me in a way few other articles have.

My son loves koalas. He has about 10 stuffed toy koalas, along with a variety of other koala-related items. We pray for koalas quite often in our bed-time prayers. When he hears about koalas that are hurt or injured, he gets upset. He even once wrote a letter to Peter Garrett asking him to protect koalas. If you've ever wondered why there's a koala on this page, it's not just because it's an Australian animal. It's because my son loves koalas. In fact, he chose the picture.

I've always liked koalas. They're cute. They look cuddly. They're Australian. What's not to love? But I care about them a lot more now than I used to. My love for my son means I care about what he cares about. I consider koalas valuable because my son places value on them. He calls koalas good and I agree.

Just as I love my son, I also love God. And just as I value those things that are my son cares about, I should also value those things that God cares about. God wasn't just looking at koalas when he saw that they were good. He was looking at the whole of Creation. My care for nature must not stop with the koalas that my son calls good, but must extend to every part of the Creation that God calls good.

In saying that, though, we are finite creatures and cannot care for the whole of Creation in the way that God does. I'm afraid I'm never going to be able to look at a rat the same way I look at a koala. And my dog has far more worth in my eyes than any fleas or ticks that might attack him.

Therefore, I think having a special attachment to a something in nature (whether that be an animal, a plant, a pet or a place) is a good thing. We can never come close to the love God has for all Creation. But in developing a special attachment to one part of nature, we may feel a tiny part of what God feels for all of nature. We may care about all nature, we may even love many parts of nature. But that special attachment to one part of nature takes that care and love to a new level - a level that cannot be sustained on a worldwide level. The picture on the TV screen of one individual hurting animal often impacts us in a way that statistics about the entire species cannot. When we have a special attachment for that specific animal, we are impacted even more.

I suspect that there are a few Australians who may not care at all about the polar bears, but who will care about the koalas. It's part of human nature to care most about those things that are closest to us. While we must not limit our care for nature to only those things that are close to us, I don't think caring more for specific parts of nature is necessarily a bad thing. It is through caring deeply about something specific that we often learn to extend that care out towards all of nature.

None of us loves every person in the world the same way God does. While we try to love all human beings and believe that all human beings have value, we naturally care more about the people that are closest to us. I love my sons, my family and my friends more than I love the person I pass on the street and just say hello to. And I care for that person more than I care for someone living in France who I've never met. And yet loving these people that I do know helps me to feel love and empathy for those that I don't know.

If someone told me that they loved all human beings, but had no one human being that they particularly loved, I would wonder how well they really loved human beings. And yet often I think we talk about care of nature in very general terms, without delving deeper into the specific relationships people have with parts of nature. And I would say that our highly mobile society means we are less likely to form those attachments to nature in terms of place. It is when we become familiar with a particular place, that we often develop an attachment for the birds, the animals and the plants that belong to that place.

Yes, God calls all of Creation good. And yes, God cares for it all. And as we seek to follow God, we must recognise the intrinsic value of all of nature, as opposed to only seeing the value of things that provide benefits to humans. However, I don't believe this means we need to try and care for each part of nature exactly the same way. Nor does it mean that we should avoid cultivating a special attachment to certain parts of nature. It is through those attachments, that our love for nature may most closely mirror God's own.  

Tweet

Tobacco and climate change

            'Propaganda mills' are putting out warnings that ignore other research. Agencies are using a scare campaign to raise revenue. There is an 'unfair attempt to destroy' industry and affect 'the livelihood of millions of people'.

            Sound familiar?

            But I'm not paraphrasing climate change denialists. I'm paraphrasing a tobacco ad from the 1960s. Here's the full thing.

Tobacco Ad from the 1960s

"100 years ago the tomato was considered 'poison'"

            In the 19^th Century the tomato was considered poisonous … children were warned to enjoy its beauty but not to taste it. Today we know the tomato is not only delicious but an excellent source of vitamins A and C.

            Now we are being told that tobacco is poison. The propaganda mills grind out dire warnings based on "research." These warnings simply ignore other bodies of research which flatly state "no proved link" between tobacco and diseases of the lungs and heart. Several independent health agencies use the tobacco scare to raise huge sums of money.

            There is good reason to think that within a few years we will look back and laugh about "the great tobacco scare of the 1960s." In the meantime, there is a vicious, unfair attempt to destroy a great American agricultural industry, affecting the livelihood of millions of people.

            Think about it!

           

            (From Ending the Tobacco Holocaust: How big tobacco affects our health, pocketbook, and political freedom - and what we can do about it, by Dr Michael Rabinoff).

            There was a time when an ad like this from the past would have shocked me. I may have even laughed. I know I laughed at Back to the Future where Marty gets told the links between smoking and cancer haven't been proven. But despite the ad's predictions, no-one is seriously looking back and laughing at "the great tobacco scare of the 1960s".

            But the reason this ad doesn't shock me today is that it's very similar to what we're hearing about climate change. I've heard all these arguments by different people at one time or another - that the link isn't proven between man-made carbon emissions and global warming, that agencies are using climate change to raise revenue and that our response to it will affect industry and people's livelihoods.

            Of course, just because climate change sceptics use the same arguments as this ad doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, any more than the erroneous health scare against tomatoes proved the health scare against tobacco was wrong. But it should make us realise that just because people label something a 'scare' and claim that the science is not proven does not mean there is no cause for concern.

            And I think it is fair to say that if the 'tobacco scare' had been taken a lot more seriously (and I say this as a smoker, albeit it one that is trying to quit), then a lot of lives may have been saved. Will we say the same about climate change one day? Instead of looking back and laughing at the "great climate change scare of the early twenty-first century" will we be looking back and wishing that we paid more attention?

            As the ad says - Think about it!

Tweet

Polar bears and sin

Most people would be aware that on 22 July, Anders Behring Breivik set off bombs in government buildings in Oslo, killing eight people, and then went on a shooting spree at a camp of the Workers' Youth League, killing 69 people. But there was another attack in Norway that you may not be aware of. Last Friday, a polar bear attacked a youth group, injuring four people and killing 17-year old, Horatio Chapple.

Both attacks bring up questions of sin.

Breivik, as an individual, sinned. There is no doubt about that. And when we ask questions about how God can let this happen, the short answer is that God did not want Breivik to murder anybody. But he gave all humans free will and Breivik used his free will to murder those people and disobey God.

Of course, this still brings up questions about why God didn't prevent Breivik using his free will to kill people. We can understand why a loving God would give humans free will. Yet it is often hard to understand why he continues to let them exercise that free will when its results can be so devastating.

But at another level we may well ask what responsibility society (or specific sections of society) has for this sin. Was he influenced by other people? Can we lay the blame (or at least part of it) at the door of religion or religious institutions? Should someone have been alerted to the possibility of him harming someone from his postings on the internet? Was there anything in his background that could have contributed to his state of mind? Or do we just pass him off as an isolated madman?

And quite frequently, it is when the blame may be placed on those things that we hold dear that we are most likely to say it is solely the individual's fault.

So what does all this have to do with polar bears? Well as with the Breivik terrorist attacks, the polar bear attack was not part of God's plan. And the reason why things do not happen on earth according to God's plan is because sin has entered it.

So again, we need to ask questions about whose sin contributed to the polar bear attack. Unlike humans, polar bears are not given free will. So we can not say it was the polar bear's sin. It can not make individual choices and is not accountable for his actions.

Another answer is that it was Adam and Eve's sin. God made the world good. But when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, sin entered the world, bringing death and disease with it.

And certainly I believe that. Many people are attacked and killed by animals. And sometimes we can look to human actions for their cause. Other times, it just seems the way the world is. But the way the world is is not the way the world was meant to be. And I believe the reason for that is that sin affects the whole world.

However, we cannot blame that just on Adam and Eve. After original sin, God says the land is cursed for their disobedience (Genesis 3:17). But verses such as Leviticus 26:25, Deuteronomy 29:23-25, Jeremiah 2:14-17, 9:12-14, 44:22, Ezekiel 33:26-29, Micah 7:13 and Zechariah 7:12-14 show that the land continues to suffer because of human sin. This is really the subject for another post. But I do want to draw attention to the possibility that this may account for many animal attacks. If any type of death is due to original sin, then surely death of humans by animals (as well as death of animals) may be caused by our continuing disobedience.

The danger in considering this is that we don't see it as anything that can be changed. It may not be the way the world is meant to be, but it is the way the world is (at least until Christ's return). There will always be sin in the world and therefore there will always be consequences for the land (including plants, animals and people).

While this may be true, it does not mean we need not ask questions about whether human sin was directly or indirectly responsible for such things as the polar bear attack. While sin in general terms has consequences for the land, specific sins impact the land in a very real way. As Christians, we can not just say this is the way the world is. We must acknowledge our part in making this world the way it is, rather than the way God meant it to be. And that acknowledgement must be followed by repentance and a turning away from that sin.

Polar bear attacks have been on the increase in recent years. The polar bears need to go further afield to find food, thereby coming into contact with humans more frequently. The polar bear that attacked Chapple was significantly underweight and starving. Photographer, Andy Rouse, has argued that they are desperate for food, which makes them dangerous. He also said the climate change effects were driving them into more populated areas. (Read about his comments here)

Is this our fault? If we take God seriously when he says our sin affects the land, then we must answer yes. But we must not stop there. Instead, we must ask the difficult questions about what humans may have done that led to increased polar-bear attacks. We must ask whether changing our climate may cause further incidents that do not reflect God's plan. We must also be prepared to accept that the things we hold dear may be contributing to the problem. Then we must acknowledge our sin and repent of it.

 
Tweet