When I think of the small Southern Baptist Church that my father pastors, I think of pig pickings, meandering invitational hymns and AIDS outreach group meetings. A top-down list of its priorities would probably go from each member’s personal walk with Jesus to maintaining a spiritually uplifting community to evangelically-minded social justice ventures. I have never seen a recycling bin in the sanctuary building or fellowship hall, and the church just purchased the fallow field and small patch of forest that border its property with plans to increase its parking lot. The type of organic growth that David Baptist is looking for is from the ripe field of local, unchurched teens.
David Van Biema of Time Magazine reports that HarperCollins has released – just yesterday – a new look on a very old book. It is called “The Green Bible, a scripture for the Prius age that calls attention to more than 1,000 verses related to nature by printing them in a pleasant shade of forest green, much as red-letter editions encrimson the words of Jesus.” The idea driving the release rests on a Pew study that reports 54% of evangelicals and 63% of people between the ages of 18 and 29 are in favor of stronger environmental regulations and laws. In this spirit, one of The Green Bible’s introductions presents this spiritually conservationist generation with a new buzz-phrase – “creation care.”
Van Biema goes on to point out potential landmines for the Good Book’s chromatic conversion, mentioning an aptly-named opponent, Richard Land. A Southern Baptist leader, Land represents a wider demographic who may not necessarily disagree with the spirit of conservation but refuses to give it priority over more explicit biblical imperatives, such as loving God and loving one’s neighbor. Since humanity’s fallen nature makes perfection of these first two commandments virtually impossible, the implication is that God’s gift (or mandate) of dominion (or responsible stewardship, to the greenies) over the earth must indefinitely remain, at best, a distant third. In addition, conservative Christians find fault in The Green Bible’s reliance on the translation of the New Revised Standard Version. William Martin, in With God On Our Side, mentions that Carl McIntyre, conservative clarion of the 1940’s and 50’s, called the Revised Standard Version “an unholy, un-American, communist-inspired translation” (37). Who knew fundamentalist evangelicals would oppose a very similar thing over half a century later? After all, it is new! (sarcasm mine)
Somewhere, Van Biema gets lost over who The Green Bible’s audience is truly intended to be. Just after claiming that “mainline Protestants have long been green,” he reminds us that it is “conservative Christians who drive Bible sales” and may reject the new textual shading based on the unfavorable translation. Who are mainline Protestants? Do they not buy Bibles? Are they predisposed to like or dislike the NRSV? The recycled paper?? The soy-based ink??? Van Biema would do well to give a few more statistics to back his claims and his group distinctions. He also fails to mention that the authors of the supplementary writings are not exactly conservative, evangelical stalwarts: Pope John Paul II and two Anglicans, Desmond Tutu and N.T Wright. His conclusion – that this edition of The Green Bible, success or failure, will ultimately give rise to nature-loving versions from larger Bible publishers and more common translations – is somewhat feeble but hopefully true. Maybe I’ll go home this Christmas and the words in the back-of-the-pew Bibles will offer a perfect holiday compliment to the Poinsettias bedecking the sanctuary. Maybe.
Posts
3 comments:
I think this is an interesting idea, and one that could be beneficial for any Christian, or even a non-Christian who is interested in what the Bible says about the environment. I certainly don't think these will end up in pews but they could certainly be the topic of a few Sunday School classes, a Vacation Bible School, etc. They should be used as an awareness campaign, so that Christians can be reminded that caring for the Earth is a responsibility from God.
I find it hard to believe that the translation would be the real reason some people reject this. It can just be used for the highlighted verses, to prove a point. It does not need to provoke a deep theological conversation about whether changing one word would mean something different.
The environment is an issue where it would be wonderful if Christianity, or any religion, could take the lead and push the movement forward. Caring for the environment is a moral issue, and religion has always taken up those issues in the past, so why not now when the fate of our planet hangs in the balance?
I agree with James, I don't think that this needs to provoke intense debate and conflict among the church. Van Biema references the fact that some Christians don’t accept it because they believe the environment is not the most important issue facing Christians, and as Wesley points out it can only ever take a “distant third” behind loving God above all things, and loving thy neighbor as oneself. But I don’t think the existence of this Bible attempts to push environment that high up the rankings; I don’t think it purports to say that taking of the environment is more important the loving God above all things. Christians’ awareness of the need for environmental action can still be raised without asserting that it is the MOST important issue facing a Christian, and I think that this Bible could be rather effective in raising awareness.
Unfortunately Christian political thought has been seemingly aliened with the conservative environmental policy which has not been adequate in responding to pending climate change. But in fact, there is a long and rich history of Christian environmentalism. There is biblical as well as ecclesiastical support for environmental conservation. From Genesis 1:28 to Pope John Paul's "Peace with God - Peace with all of Creation" in 1990, the call to protect and replenish the Earth is present throughout Christian thought. The idea of printing Bibles on green paper, highlighting environmentally friendly passages is a bit of a concern for me. While it might be a nice way to introduce Christian environmentalism to those who are not familiar with Christianity, to have to explicitly point out to Christians that the environment is important seems to take away from the power of scripture. Would it be appropriate to show pictures of homeless people next to passages which call for Christians to feed and clothe the hungry? Wouldn’t that take away from the richness of the Gospel? Environmentalism is one of the biggest issues of our time, and the Christian attitude towards conservation is an important and wonderful aspect of the cause. Christian environmentalism needs to be spread to all Christians and all of those who care about ecological protection. But this must be accomplished in a more profound way than Bibles printed on green paper.
Post a Comment