We put out recyclable stuff in our yellow wheelie bin every two weeks. Is that what you define as recycling?
Or are you talking about something more like "The Good life" (which is of course a reactionary stereotype confirming the myth that everyone in Britain is a loveable eccentric)
Is it a sin? Well, what does your conscience say? I am not fully convinced that the stuff that goes into recycling bins actually gets recycled. And even if it does it does not always result in a huge saving of energy etc. I reckon reducing consumption is the way to go.
Jesus told this story to those who were trusting in their own righteousness: Two men went to the urban waste centre. The first was a recycler. As he stood at the gate he thought to himself, "I thank you Lord that I am not like other men, I divide my waste into three different kinds, according to the colour of the bins. I turn my lights off before I leave the room and I never use more than 7 litres of water a day. The other man did not look up at the piles of refuse, the rising smoke and the birds swooping down over the Dante-esque sight and beat his breast declaring, "forgive Lord, I am a consumer."
And... thanks Michael K. I just despair of it ever being published, and it mightn't deserve it...typically the MTC School of Theology papers lie unpublished for years.
Now: recycling: well. It seems to me that we are living in a society where it is coming close to being a sin not to recycle. But, I am just not excited about it. Should I be? And doing think preachers should urge their congregations to recycle as an expressionof their godliness (legalisms aside)?
I was outraged when I discovered that they don't recycle paper here in Auckland. But when I mentioned this to a friend who understands more about this than I do he said: oh, that make perfect sense in NZ since it would take far more energy to recycle the paper than to produce wood in new-growth forests. Hence, better for the environment not to recycle!
Maybe I'm just slow, but this brought home to me that caring for the environment requires a bit more thinking than just "I must recycle as much as I can". It's a game of weighing up alternatives.
JRS's rule of reducing consumption is perhaps a better one - and might this not also be the more radical spiritual challenge for us?
In order of priority: reduce, re-use, recycle. In other words it's more important (much more important) to consume less in the first place than to recycle, some forms of which are of marginal benefit. The trouble with recycling is that an energy-intensive industry has grown up around it which simply allows us to carry on consuming with a slightly quieter conscience. It'll all end in the next few years.
Well I guess I am just trying to fit in this new enviro-puritanism with Christian godliness somewhere.
My wife's argument re nappies: 1 - the chemicals used in soaking and washing cloth nappies are also harmful to the environment, so you are damned each way and 2 - it is just like the world to put the burden for sins largely caused by male-dominated big business and governments onto women, isn't it?
he he he - like you, on this topic I defer to the in-house expert - on 1. there are various bio-degradable alternatives which avoid the problem, re 2. my wife claims it's better on the baby's bottom...
But we do use eco-friendly disposables when we're away from home; occasionally we've even bought a packet of Pampers. Shock. Horror...
Thing is, there is definitely a puritan streak in the contemporary environmental movement, and deep down there is a denial of God's sovereignty involved (and a works-righteousness as well). So I'm not at all wishing to point out any motes in your eye here :)
Michael if I may try to redeem my "What does it say in the Law?" question from the charge of mere mockery:
You're certainly onto something with this language of sinfulness/guilt/puritanism/"and we are not sorry" and so on: cleary there is a lot of moralising going on, and something like a purity code has developed in some quarters. No doubt this would be an interesting study if one were looking into culture or popular religiosity. But if the concern is with being environmentally responsible, then I think puritanism is just not that interesting. The issue has a strong social, economic, and political setting, and to me this makes it difficult to take weight-on-the-individual-conscience positions seriously. So why try?
(This is not to deny the usefulness of vanguardist groups with a mission to spend their spare time --- or indeed all of their waking hours --- exploring low-waste approaches, and witnessing to such possibilities via action: these clearly have a place. But this is not the same as guilt-tripping your neighbour in the suburbs.)
Co-authored by Bob White, a Professor at Cambridge. I haven't read it, and all I know about the author is that St. Peter's Barge (one of St. Helen's plants) invited him to give a talk, so he's probably evangelical.
I heard the other day that the problem with failing to recycle paper and other organic goods isn't simply about energy, but about methane. Sending organic material to landfill means that it decomposes anaerobically, leading to the production of methane, which is 25 times worse than carbon dioxide in terms of climate change. I wish I could remember the stats, but the bottom line was something like: the average Australian's paper usage for a year, if left to rot, produces about the same climate change gas as the average Australian's yearly car use.
But as the for the legalism/puritanism issue: the solution to legalism is not antinomianism but love, without which, you are nothing.
14 comments:
You don't recyle? What about your last post - I'm sure I've heard that before somewhere...
What do you mean you don't recycle?
We put out recyclable stuff in our yellow wheelie bin every two weeks. Is that what you define as recycling?
Or are you talking about something more like "The Good life" (which is of course a reactionary stereotype confirming the myth that everyone in Britain is a loveable eccentric)
Is it a sin? Well, what does your conscience say? I am not fully convinced that the stuff that goes into recycling bins actually gets recycled. And even if it does it does not always result in a huge saving of energy etc. I reckon reducing consumption is the way to go.
JRS
Jesus told this story to those who were trusting in their own righteousness:
Two men went to the urban waste centre. The first was a recycler. As he stood at the gate he thought to himself, "I thank you Lord that I am not like other men, I divide my waste into three different kinds, according to the colour of the bins. I turn my lights off before I leave the room and I never use more than 7 litres of water a day. The other man did not look up at the piles of refuse, the rising smoke and the birds swooping down over the Dante-esque sight and beat his breast declaring, "forgive Lord, I am a consumer."
Is this sinful?
What does it say in the Law? What do you find there?
Oh, the scoffers have lined up!
And... thanks Michael K. I just despair of it ever being published, and it mightn't deserve it...typically the MTC School of Theology papers lie unpublished for years.
Now: recycling: well. It seems to me that we are living in a society where it is coming close to being a sin not to recycle. But, I am just not excited about it. Should I be? And doing think preachers should urge their congregations to recycle as an expressionof their godliness (legalisms aside)?
I was outraged when I discovered that they don't recycle paper here in Auckland. But when I mentioned this to a friend who understands more about this than I do he said: oh, that make perfect sense in NZ since it would take far more energy to recycle the paper than to produce wood in new-growth forests. Hence, better for the environment not to recycle!
Maybe I'm just slow, but this brought home to me that caring for the environment requires a bit more thinking than just "I must recycle as much as I can". It's a game of weighing up alternatives.
JRS's rule of reducing consumption is perhaps a better one - and might this not also be the more radical spiritual challenge for us?
Further confession:
we use disposable nappies and have done for all four children. And we are not sorry.
In order of priority: reduce, re-use, recycle. In other words it's more important (much more important) to consume less in the first place than to recycle, some forms of which are of marginal benefit. The trouble with recycling is that an energy-intensive industry has grown up around it which simply allows us to carry on consuming with a slightly quieter conscience. It'll all end in the next few years.
Bit shocked about your nappy confession though!
Well I guess I am just trying to fit in this new enviro-puritanism with Christian godliness somewhere.
My wife's argument re nappies: 1 - the chemicals used in soaking and washing cloth nappies are also harmful to the environment, so you are damned each way and
2 - it is just like the world to put the burden for sins largely caused by male-dominated big business and governments onto women, isn't it?
And she votes GREEN!
he he he - like you, on this topic I defer to the in-house expert - on 1. there are various bio-degradable alternatives which avoid the problem, re 2. my wife claims it's better on the baby's bottom...
But we do use eco-friendly disposables when we're away from home; occasionally we've even bought a packet of Pampers. Shock. Horror...
Thing is, there is definitely a puritan streak in the contemporary environmental movement, and deep down there is a denial of God's sovereignty involved (and a works-righteousness as well). So I'm not at all wishing to point out any motes in your eye here :)
Michael if I may try to redeem my "What does it say in the Law?" question from the charge of mere mockery:
You're certainly onto something with this language of sinfulness/guilt/puritanism/"and we are not sorry" and so on: cleary there is a lot of moralising going on, and something like a purity code has developed in some quarters. No doubt this would be an interesting study if one were looking into culture or popular religiosity. But if the concern is with being environmentally responsible, then I think puritanism is just not that interesting. The issue has a strong social, economic, and political setting, and to me this makes it difficult to take weight-on-the-individual-conscience positions seriously. So why try?
(This is not to deny the usefulness of vanguardist groups with a mission to spend their spare time --- or indeed all of their waking hours --- exploring low-waste approaches, and witnessing to such possibilities via action: these clearly have a place. But this is not the same as guilt-tripping your neighbour in the suburbs.)
Byron posted a useful piece along these lines yesterday, on the related idea of being "climate clever".
This book has just (August) been released:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christianity-Climate-Change-Sustainable-Living/dp/0281058334/
Co-authored by Bob White, a Professor at Cambridge. I haven't read it, and all I know about the author is that St. Peter's Barge (one of St. Helen's plants) invited him to give a talk, so he's probably evangelical.
I heard the other day that the problem with failing to recycle paper and other organic goods isn't simply about energy, but about methane. Sending organic material to landfill means that it decomposes anaerobically, leading to the production of methane, which is 25 times worse than carbon dioxide in terms of climate change. I wish I could remember the stats, but the bottom line was something like: the average Australian's paper usage for a year, if left to rot, produces about the same climate change gas as the average Australian's yearly car use.
But as the for the legalism/puritanism issue: the solution to legalism is not antinomianism but love, without which, you are nothing.
Post a Comment