Written by J. Warner Wallace |
Friday, April 12, 2024
My Christian worldview, however, compels me to see the environment unselfishly. The respect I have for my environment is more than simple utilitarianism. The “natural” world around me is a reflection of the “supernatural” God who created all species with the same love, attention to detail, and creative concern. As I learn to submit to my Maker, I come to appreciate everything He’s made. My concern for the environment is not rooted in my evolutionary status (allowing me to take advantage of the environment if it suits me). 

A friend of mine recently wrote a post on Facebook and encountered the wrath of several of his social media friends. He innocently asked if anyone wanted a kitten. His young feline pet escaped and became pregnant before she could be spayed. The online assault began almost immediately as friends and acquaintances berated him over his negligence in failing to spay his pet. For many who deny the existence of the Christian God, environmentalism and the cause of animal rights have become a religion of sorts. The movement has its own doctrinal beliefs, its own set of commandments and its own set of prescribed consequences. At times, the doctrinal beliefs seem self-contradictory. I have many friends who fight vehemently for the rights of animals while supporting the abortion of humans. Maybe contradictions of this sort are the result of improper “grounding”.
Environmentalism from a Christian Perspective
As a Christian, I definitely understand my responsibility to protect and steward the natural environment. This responsibility is “grounded” in God’s purpose for me as a human created in His image. Adam and Eve were given “dominion” over all creation (Genesis 1:26-28) but they clearly understood this as a responsibility to “work” and “keep” the Garden (Genesis 2:15). Dominion is not reckless power; it is careful responsibility and stewardship. By the time the nation of Israel was established, God provided a number of laws to make sure His children understood the importance of His creation and they learned to respect and care for other animals (see Leviticus 25:1-12, Deuteronomy 25:4 and Deuteronomy 22:6). My concern for the environment is an act of obedience and respect for God’s creation.
Read More
Related Posts:

In a culture that refuses to accept mortal limits, Christians must not succumb to fear-filled, denial-ridden attempts to eliminate or control mortality in their own strength. While we can and should work to improve ourselves, including our physical health and wellbeing, we can face our mortality with humility and courage and, especially, hope. After all, we know the One who conquered death. 

Earlier this month, tech multi-millionaire and anti-aging obsessionist Bryan Johnson invited 2,500 people to apply for a spot in his latest endeavor. “Project Blueprint” is a 90-day, watered-down version of Johnson’s extreme $2-million-per-year anti-aging regimen. The project’s goal is simply, “Don’t die.” 
In addition to a $999 entry fee, those accepted will spend $333 per month on food products that make up about 400 calories of a daily diet. Those interested in tracking their progress more closely can purchase “more advanced biomarker measurements” for an additional $800 or $1,600, depending on the desired tier.  
Spending at least $2,000 on a three-month “self-experimentation study” that does not include daily groceries is a heavy lift. However, in less than 50 hours, 8,000 people had applied. 
In addition to his celebrity status, one factor that makes Johnson’s immortality experiment so compelling is the myth of “progress” that still holds significant sway over the modern world. With that myth comes the illusion that eventually, somehow, we will gain mastery over our mortality. After all, thanks to modern medicine, deadly diseases like measles, mumps, and polio—diseases that once devastated mankind—are now largely preventable. Others, like smallpox, have even been declared eradicated. Add in modern innovations such as public sewage, running water, and increased agricultural production, and in under 200 years, the average human lifespan has nearly doubled.  
Scientific discoveries and medical advancements are gifts of God. And yet, for all the benefits brought to the common good, a common side effect has been an inflated sense of control. It’s not difficult to see why so many people remain convinced that death can be defeated with ever newer and more impressive technologies. 
Read More
Related Posts:

Guess who is marked out as a false prophet by such criteria. Karl Barth. For that man maintained a lifelong, impenitent, and fairly public affair with his research assistant, Charlotte von Kirschbaum, in which he both refused to repent when confronted by his mother and forced his wife (who knew about the affair) to accept his mistress moving into the family home. Christiane Tietze has the story in the Scottish Journal of Theology, available here. I’m not sure that Eph. 5:3 (“sexual immorality . . . must not even be named among you”) and 5:12 (“it is shameful even to speak of the things that they [the sons of disobedience, v. 6] do in secret”) commend reading the whole thing, but suffice it to say that such brazen hypocrisy marks the man out as someone to avoid, not one to learn from.

In his Church Dogmatics, the Swiss theologian Karl Barth said that “the fear of scholasticism is the mark of a false prophet.”1 The theological ‘retrieval’ crowd has latched upon this quote and repeats it with some regularity in their endeavor to promote a renewed interest in ancient and medieval theology. Craig Carter began an article at Credo with the quote, while Ryan McGraw quoted it approvingly elsewhere at Credo, in an article which featured the quote as a ready-made tweet on the side bar: readers had only to click to retweet it on their own X accounts.
The choice is a strange one, to put it mildly. Scripture warns us to beware false prophets and tells us their character that we might recognize and avoid them. Such people are characterized by “sensuality” (1 Pet. 2:2), the Greek for which (ἀσελγείαις) means “wantonness,” “lewdness,” “licentiousness,” and “conduct shocking to public decency,” per Strong’s (see here). They “indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority” (v. 10), and “have eyes full of adultery” (v. 14).
Guess who is marked out as a false prophet by such criteria. Karl Barth. For that man maintained a lifelong, impenitent, and fairly public affair with his research assistant, Charlotte von Kirschbaum, in which he both refused to repent when confronted by his mother and forced his wife (who knew about the affair) to accept his mistress moving into the family home.
Read More
Related Posts: