Environmentalism in Light of Psalm 24

The first two verses of this psalm have momentous import. Far from only addressing a small range of ministerial issues, they actually give us a large mandate for viewing the world. And they have been frequently overlooked or minimized in terms of their impact for living today. They are almost secret keys to understanding how God’s world works. You and your children need to know these and refer to them often, especially during Earth Day Fest.

They also contradict two of the largest thought movements of modern history: environmentalism and evolutionism. These are two areas of thought to examine in light of the Scriptures before us. This is, I’m confident, another occasion in which we’ll see how all of Scripture is wise and useful for us. Years, no centuries, before these issues arose, God, in his Word, answered these philosophical challenges that catch many unprepared.

First, note what v. 1 affirms and what it rules out.

The earth belongs to the Lord. That may seem simple, mundane, or even a statement of the obvious. But it is vitally important. If God owns the earth, then it is his by right and also his to care for. This verse informs us that God is the owner of the earth, and any management of it should be done in keeping with the wishes of the owner. God is also responsible and quite capable of keeping this earth going and keeping it on track.

Not only the surface of the earth but everything in it. The sum total is part of God’s creation.

A movement has arisen, however, over the past generation that acts as though “The earth is man’s and everything in it.” That environmentalist movement is actually very old; it has just returned from exile, dressed in different garb.

Conservationism is OK; excessive emphasis on the enviro is imbalanced.

Students and parents need to know something about this in order to think and make decisions. We are not called on to follow the world’s thinking, but one of the reasons we study these psalms is to learn from God’s own Word how he wants us to do things. This verse offers a clear and simple corrective to the thinking of a world that is running away from God. If we learn it, we need not go down those paths of error.

If one knows, e.g., that the earth is the Lord’s and that God is quite capable of managing it properly, then several things go contrary to the modern enviro movement. For example,

If we know the earth is the Lord’s and that he made it capable of replenishing, then we will take reasonable steps to keep it replenishing and not panic as if scarcity were about to swallow us all. Sure, we can destroy certain environments but guess what: often they return with vigor. Burn an acre of land, come back a year later, and it’ll most likely need mowing. God made the ecosystem so well that he also made it to recover and replenish itself. Now, that’s hard to build in to a system made by man.

Furthermore, if the earth is the Lord’s, might not the global warming and global cooling fluctuate but not call on us to panic and add high taxes to meet some imagined protocols? Might the past three decades or so be a blip on the graph instead of the end-all?. For example, one summer has been the coolest on record for 36 years in Atlanta; or the pollen count broke an all-time record by a ton last week. Does that mean that we should expect the average temp. to drop five more degrees in future summers or that we will sneeze endlessly? Those are possible, but don’t sell the ACs. A longer measurement for many presumed enviro-catastrophes can encourage us to be calm instead of leaping to conclusions that may not be warranted.

If the earth is the Lord’s, and also if he told us to take dominion over creation, isn’t it OK to use scientific and engineering measures to improve aspects of creation and also to generate more power and more food by synthetic means? Some Christians seem afraid of science and technology. I don’t think we need to be fearful. Instead, we should be encouraging our young people to master these fields, all with Bible in hand, and lead!!

If the earth is the Lord’s we may not need to join the environmentalists and scream, “The Sky is falling.”

Clarification: The Bible, of course, is not against good stewardship of resources. Indeed, we should do all we can to preserve God’s world. But there’s also a coming time, when it will pass away. A new heaven and new earth will eventually replace earth. So factor that in. The earth is not permanent; it is not to be protected over the value of human life; and it is certainly not our Mother.

The following are flaws of enviro-ism:

1. That all species are equal; the tree, in other words, deserves just as much protection as does a human—no, the Bible makes it plain that humans are created in God’s image and only they are higher than other species. Review Psalm 8 on this.

2. That our resources are hopelessly eliminated by industrial and business production. Thus the businessmen and workers are enemies. Some people almost act, contrary to Reformational teaching, as if business, industry, or success are signs of greed instead of God’s blessing. Earth’s resources are ample enough for us to produce things, and we ought not feel afraid of success or taming parts of the world for man’s betterment and God’s glory. Think of a garden as a small-scale model of what we are called to do in cities and nations: we take a barren mound of dirt and turn it into a city. That glorifies God and imitates his craftsmanship.

3. That the earth’s population must be controlled and limited by local or international govt. mandates.

One of its earliest advocates of this theory was Thomas Malthus (1766-1834). If you are unfamiliar with him, he’s the grandfather of population control; he is also another illustration of Solomon’s point: there is nothing new under the sun. Malthus was an early proponent of limiting the population—the demand side, if you will—instead of increasing the growth (the supply side).

Malthus suggested that human population will outgrow its ability to provide for itself. It didn’t happen.

Closer to our time, Paul Ehrlich released The Population Bomb (1968), described as the book “that incited a worldwide fear of overpopulation.” Erhlich essentially updated Malthus’ earlier thought, predicting dire ecological crises. It didn’t happen.

Then, we had a national leader whose “Inconvenient Truth” didn’t happen either. Christians, of all people, with Psalm 24 in hand should not join the ranks of those who have predicted 18 of the last 11 environmental disasters.

People forget the dire predictions that were never fulfilled. As a consequence, the public remains receptive to warnings concerning a multitude of new crises that demand our urgent attention.

After the 1970s, religion died for a lot of people. They needed a cause bigger than themselves. One of the things now latched onto with religious zeal is Earth Day. Each spring, folks gather and celebrate, in almost cultic attire, the Mother earth. What they often forget is Father God. As wonderful as the earth is, it does not stand on its own; it is created, it is derived. It is from the hand of God, not from itself.

Along with the many ceremonies that have become a part of the Earth Day tradition is an idea that has become the environmental answer to post-modern religious practice. An old concept—passed off as “the science”—has been dusted off and repackaged, but many of us recognize it for what it is—earth worship, plain and simple.

This idolatrous position generates a particular outlook in regard to humankind. Many in the environmental movement decry the traditional Christian belief that human beings possess a God-given dominion over other forms of life that inhabit the planet. In the opinion of radical environmentalists, human beings are not merely the cause of the problem. They are the problem. The highest form of environmental purity is thus achieved in an unspoiled wilderness, free from the presence or influence of Homo sapiens.

Maybe, just maybe, some less religious eyes are now looking at these policies and cheering the demise of enviro-folly. This will go hand-in-hand with trusting SOME of the science (the sound part) while distrusting the pseudo-science that is so trendy.