HarperCollins has just launched the world's first environmentally friendly Bible. The Green Bible is printed on recycled paper, uses eco-friendly ink and is bound with a linen cover. It also contains reflections on 'creation care' from such disparate figures as St Francis of Assisi and Desmond Tutu. There's a slightly cheesy video that has been produced to coincide with the launch, but it gives a good overview.
The strapline for the new version of the Bible is 'a priceless message that doesn't cost the earth' (and as if to prove the point, it's now available on Amazon at a cut-price rate). The initiative has started to be picked up now in the mainstream media, with Time Magazine even giving it a positive write-up. I think this is a great idea, as it underlines how many Christians believe that the Bible to be the original green manifesto. With over 1000 references to the earth in the Bible - and only 490 references to heaven - it's not surprising that Christians increasingly agree that God is Green. But in fact, this is not a new phenomenon.
Some people insist on portraying Christians as latecomers to the environmental party. But that's not really fair. Here's an overview on environmentalism from our recently launched Bible Style Guide:
In recent decades, the view that people have a duty to protect the environment has gone mainstream. In its wake came a desire, particularly among committed environmentalists, to investigate what the Bible may or may not have to say on the subject. A common complaint from some within the green movement was (and still is) that the Bible encourages an exploitative attitude towards the earth.
They maintain that Christians down the centuries have often argued from Genesis 1.28 that God has given humans the green light to rule and ‘subdue the earth’. As they see it, this has led people to ride roughshod over animals, plants and the earth itself. God’s plan seemed to be that humans were to be conquerors of – not carers for – the environment.
However, recent studies have questioned this idea. Scholars acknowledge the long-standing view among Christians that God had in some sense set humanity over creation. However, they point out that this did not often translate into an understanding that humans could exploit the natural world. For most of Christian history, Genesis 1.28 was interpreted in all sorts of different ways – and very few of these gave exploitation the thumbs-up. Only from the seventeenth century CE onwards was that text used as permission from God to scientifically ‘master and manage’ the earth.
Nevertheless, it is true that from the 1960s onwards, some (but not all) Christians did distance themselves from the growing environmental movement. This was sometimes because they were suspicious of the New Age ‘earth-centred’ language (e.g. ‘Gaia’, ‘Mother Nature’, ‘oneness with the universe’ etc) often associated with it. Some Christians do still think that climate change science is not as well-founded as is popularly believed. As far as they are concerned, the Church’s mission is to save souls rather than the planet. They believe that 2 Peter 3.10–12 says that the world is going to be destroyed by God anyway, so there is no need to worry about its future.
Many other Christians, on the other hand, believe it is important to protect the natural world. They aim to rediscover the Christian desire to care for creation found in earlier centuries. They point out that Genesis 2.7 speaks of the need to ‘cultivate and care’ for the earth and that Revelation 11.18 criticises those who would destroy it. With this in mind, they are often more comfortable with the concept of ‘creation care’ than with the term ‘environmentalism’.
People used to highlight their bibles, and now they come pre-highlighted. Not sure if that's progress or not.
But since Christians have been a little slow in recognising the Bible's teaching on the earth, then I suppose this may help.
Posted by: Jeremy | October 02, 2008 at 09:11 AM