What do you think?
Rate this book
Pollution and the Death of Man
The Bible is mankind was meant to exercise godly domination over the earth. Yet today men mine valuable resources by whatever method brings the greatest profit in the shortest time, leaving the earth ravaged. They hunt and fish for pleasure, not food, leaving animal carcasses behind to rot. They worship self and ignore the God who made them. The answer to the ecological crises of our day is found only in the glorious truths of biblical God created ex nihilo ; He is both infinite and personal; we are made in His image and thus have great value in Him; Christ's death brought redemption from the consequences of the Fall (for believing individuals now and for all creation when He returns). There are indeed serious ecological crises in our world, but, says Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer, one of the greatest Christian thinkers of our "The Christian who believes the Bible should be the man who--with God's help and in the power of the Holy Spirit--is treating nature now in the direction of the way nature will be [when Christ returns].... God's calling to the Christian now, and to the Christian community, in the area of nature... is that we should exhibit a substantial healing here and now." A powerful Christian classic--a marvelous theological response to ecological danger signals.
168 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
34 people are currently reading
657 people want to read
About the author
Francis A. Schaeffer
96 books813 followersFrancis August Schaeffer was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. He is most famous for his writings and his establishment of the L'Abri community in Switzerland. Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more historic Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics which he believed would answer the questions of the age.
Wife: Edith Schaeffer
children: Susan Schaeffer Macaulay
Wife: Edith Schaeffer
children: Susan Schaeffer Macaulay
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
March 15, 2023
Although published in the 70’s, Schaeffer’s balanced, Biblical perspective laid out in this book is relevant today as ever. On one end of the spectrum we have pantheist hippies that care for “mother earth” and on the other end we have global elites who think that if it can be done, it should be, with no regard for long term destruction of creation. Haste and greed. So how then, does the Christian live? How shall we dwell in the land? Read this book to find out.
“God is interested in creation. He does not despise it. There is no reason whatsoever, and it is absolutely false biblically, for the Christian to have a platonic view of nature. What God has made, I, who am also a creature, must not despise.”
“God is interested in creation. He does not despise it. There is no reason whatsoever, and it is absolutely false biblically, for the Christian to have a platonic view of nature. What God has made, I, who am also a creature, must not despise.”
September 3, 2018
Theology of the Environment
2 September 2018
Well, Schaeffer is certainly correct in one point at the beginning of this book, and that is that there has never really been a consistent Christian theology when it comes to the environment and caring for the Earth. In fact, in all the years that I have been to church I have rarely, if ever, heard a sermon where we are confronted with our wholesale destruction of the planet. In fact, there was a general belief in the theory that since the world is slated for destruction, taking care of the environment is a moot point, but then again this also follows the belief that the most important role for a Christian is to take is to basically share the gospel of Jesus, and pretty much everything will flow out of that.
Well, we can certainly see how well that has worked, and I’m not sure if the idea that God is one day going to destroy and remake the world anew gives us the right to basically screw up the environment and leave it as a polluted wasteland. Mind you, there might also be this belief that if we destroy the world then it will bring on the second coming, but I don’t think you can really force God’s hand in that way – don’t worry, I’ve tried. In fact, I believe that some of the issues that God had with the Israelites had a lot to do with them not taking care of the land in which they were living (among many other things).
Now, Schaeffer raises the issue of the Sacred Grove, which in a sense sits side by side with the idea of the brazen image. The way he sees it is that this whole idea of the brazen image is basically taken to the extreme to pretty much ban all forms of religious art. The thing is that I don’t have a problem with religious art, and I’m not sure the Bible is really all that condemning of it either. The thing is that it is not so much the art that is the problem, but the reason for which the art is used. Fortunately, governments have stepped in to prevent some churches from basically destroying a lot of the art located within its walls, but surprise surprise, the church then gets up in arms over government intervention, and how they are taking away their freedom of religion (no they are not).
However, it was the sacred grove that I was speaking of, something that was quite prevalent in the era of Ancient Rome. However, due to the idea that the grove was pagan, when the Christians took control of the empire they didn’t just start going around and destroying the groves, but they saw all respect for nature as being something abhorrent, almost akin to idolatry. Mind you, this started to change during the Renaissance, particularly with the rise of some of the more modern styles of art. It seems that artists began to appreciate the beauty of nature, and this went even further when Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt created the world’s first national parks.
There is also the problem with the modern corporate culture – when profit is the primary motive then pretty much everything else gets tossed to the side. For instance, when new housing developments are established, the developers basically lay waste to the land. The same is the case with pollution, which is why we need clean water and clean air acts. Unfortunately, these pieces of legislation, and the departments that overlook them, seem to be little more than toothless tigers. In the end, such laws are pretty much trumped by the pursuit of profit. In fact, organisations such as the WTO pretty much dominate over all other organisations to the point that any attempt to harm an entity’s profit will result in fines and penalties.
Okay, the environment is actually a lot more resilient than we give it credit for – species pretty much learn to survive and adapt, and those that are unable to do so end up dying out. Take our cities for example, where we have literally driven out all wildlife with the exception of rodents. In Australia possums can be found living in parks (and our roofs), and I’ve noticed that the same is the case with squirrels in London. Ironically, one of the things that I discovered is that apparently the rabbit is also an introduced species to England, apparently brought over by the Normans so that they would have something to hunt. The thing is that creatures, and plants, survive and adapt, and the problem is that this adaptation takes the form of creatures literally becoming a monoculture. Mind you, I’d be concerned with parasites who learn to survive off of oil and other rubbish.
Schaeffer also has this idea of a hierarchy, sort of like God, Human, Animal, Plant, and Machine. Okay, I’m not entirely sure if you can put machine into this hierarchy since it happens to be an artificial construct, but then again many of our plants and animals are also artificial constructs, having been specifically bred by us to provide us with goods and services. Yet, as I have suggested, we aren’t the first civilisation to bring wholesale destruction onto the environment – the nation of Egypt, in one form or another, has existed on the banks of the Nile, and that south of the Aswan dam, the banks of the Nile have been an artificial construct since the beginning of civilisation as we know it. There are also suggestions that the Sahara came about through an ecological catastrophe, no doubt due to extensive farming techniques that resulted in the land being stripped bare. A similar thing is happening in Australia where intensive farming techniques are pretty much altering the landscape of an already arid land.
So, this brings me back to the question of Christians and the environment. Well, as I mentioned, I agree that very little is being done by Christians to actually stand up for the environment against the ravages of big business. In a way they are being so distracted by issues such as abortion and gay marriage that they seem to have forgotten that not only do we have just one Earth, but we are also systematically destroying it. The problem is that our neglect of the planet is resulting in millions of people dying of starvation, and water becoming undrinkable and the air unbreathable. In reality this is an issue that goes way beyond being good stewards of God’s Earth, to having a destructive effect not only upon those around us, but upon those yet to be born – you know, loving one’s neighbour and all that. E-waste is a classic example since a lot of it ends up in third world countries which have literally become garbage dumps, and valuable materials are extracted from the waste using some incredibly toxic processes.
The question then arises as to what can be done, particularly since many of the polluters hold much more sway than what we do. I guess one of the things comes down to our mind set. There is an argument that goes along the lines of ‘they do much worse then what we do, so we should keep on doing it’. Well, if everybody thought like that then nothing would change. The thing is that there are lots of things that we can do, such as changing our consumption habits, and doing what we can to recycle. However, one thing is that the church really needs to start taking the idea of caring for our environment much more seriously that what it has been doing in the past. That can easily be done by lobbying the church elders and ministers, and if that doesn’t work, then maybe looking for a church that does care about the environment.
2 September 2018
Well, Schaeffer is certainly correct in one point at the beginning of this book, and that is that there has never really been a consistent Christian theology when it comes to the environment and caring for the Earth. In fact, in all the years that I have been to church I have rarely, if ever, heard a sermon where we are confronted with our wholesale destruction of the planet. In fact, there was a general belief in the theory that since the world is slated for destruction, taking care of the environment is a moot point, but then again this also follows the belief that the most important role for a Christian is to take is to basically share the gospel of Jesus, and pretty much everything will flow out of that.
Well, we can certainly see how well that has worked, and I’m not sure if the idea that God is one day going to destroy and remake the world anew gives us the right to basically screw up the environment and leave it as a polluted wasteland. Mind you, there might also be this belief that if we destroy the world then it will bring on the second coming, but I don’t think you can really force God’s hand in that way – don’t worry, I’ve tried. In fact, I believe that some of the issues that God had with the Israelites had a lot to do with them not taking care of the land in which they were living (among many other things).
Now, Schaeffer raises the issue of the Sacred Grove, which in a sense sits side by side with the idea of the brazen image. The way he sees it is that this whole idea of the brazen image is basically taken to the extreme to pretty much ban all forms of religious art. The thing is that I don’t have a problem with religious art, and I’m not sure the Bible is really all that condemning of it either. The thing is that it is not so much the art that is the problem, but the reason for which the art is used. Fortunately, governments have stepped in to prevent some churches from basically destroying a lot of the art located within its walls, but surprise surprise, the church then gets up in arms over government intervention, and how they are taking away their freedom of religion (no they are not).
However, it was the sacred grove that I was speaking of, something that was quite prevalent in the era of Ancient Rome. However, due to the idea that the grove was pagan, when the Christians took control of the empire they didn’t just start going around and destroying the groves, but they saw all respect for nature as being something abhorrent, almost akin to idolatry. Mind you, this started to change during the Renaissance, particularly with the rise of some of the more modern styles of art. It seems that artists began to appreciate the beauty of nature, and this went even further when Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt created the world’s first national parks.
There is also the problem with the modern corporate culture – when profit is the primary motive then pretty much everything else gets tossed to the side. For instance, when new housing developments are established, the developers basically lay waste to the land. The same is the case with pollution, which is why we need clean water and clean air acts. Unfortunately, these pieces of legislation, and the departments that overlook them, seem to be little more than toothless tigers. In the end, such laws are pretty much trumped by the pursuit of profit. In fact, organisations such as the WTO pretty much dominate over all other organisations to the point that any attempt to harm an entity’s profit will result in fines and penalties.
Okay, the environment is actually a lot more resilient than we give it credit for – species pretty much learn to survive and adapt, and those that are unable to do so end up dying out. Take our cities for example, where we have literally driven out all wildlife with the exception of rodents. In Australia possums can be found living in parks (and our roofs), and I’ve noticed that the same is the case with squirrels in London. Ironically, one of the things that I discovered is that apparently the rabbit is also an introduced species to England, apparently brought over by the Normans so that they would have something to hunt. The thing is that creatures, and plants, survive and adapt, and the problem is that this adaptation takes the form of creatures literally becoming a monoculture. Mind you, I’d be concerned with parasites who learn to survive off of oil and other rubbish.
Schaeffer also has this idea of a hierarchy, sort of like God, Human, Animal, Plant, and Machine. Okay, I’m not entirely sure if you can put machine into this hierarchy since it happens to be an artificial construct, but then again many of our plants and animals are also artificial constructs, having been specifically bred by us to provide us with goods and services. Yet, as I have suggested, we aren’t the first civilisation to bring wholesale destruction onto the environment – the nation of Egypt, in one form or another, has existed on the banks of the Nile, and that south of the Aswan dam, the banks of the Nile have been an artificial construct since the beginning of civilisation as we know it. There are also suggestions that the Sahara came about through an ecological catastrophe, no doubt due to extensive farming techniques that resulted in the land being stripped bare. A similar thing is happening in Australia where intensive farming techniques are pretty much altering the landscape of an already arid land.
So, this brings me back to the question of Christians and the environment. Well, as I mentioned, I agree that very little is being done by Christians to actually stand up for the environment against the ravages of big business. In a way they are being so distracted by issues such as abortion and gay marriage that they seem to have forgotten that not only do we have just one Earth, but we are also systematically destroying it. The problem is that our neglect of the planet is resulting in millions of people dying of starvation, and water becoming undrinkable and the air unbreathable. In reality this is an issue that goes way beyond being good stewards of God’s Earth, to having a destructive effect not only upon those around us, but upon those yet to be born – you know, loving one’s neighbour and all that. E-waste is a classic example since a lot of it ends up in third world countries which have literally become garbage dumps, and valuable materials are extracted from the waste using some incredibly toxic processes.
The question then arises as to what can be done, particularly since many of the polluters hold much more sway than what we do. I guess one of the things comes down to our mind set. There is an argument that goes along the lines of ‘they do much worse then what we do, so we should keep on doing it’. Well, if everybody thought like that then nothing would change. The thing is that there are lots of things that we can do, such as changing our consumption habits, and doing what we can to recycle. However, one thing is that the church really needs to start taking the idea of caring for our environment much more seriously that what it has been doing in the past. That can easily be done by lobbying the church elders and ministers, and if that doesn’t work, then maybe looking for a church that does care about the environment.
March 23, 2016
This little book completely changed my idea of environmental responsibility. It is a quick read, but it is powerful and incredibly timely, considering Schaeffer wrote it back in 1970. I seriously think it should be read by every Christian who walks our earth and uses its resources.
August 30, 2020
“Man was divided from God first; and then, ever since the Fall, man is separated from himself... And then man is divided from nature, and nature is divided from nature. So there are these multiple divisions, and one day, when Christ comes back, there is going to be a complete healing of all of them, on the basis of the ‘blood of the Lamb.’
But Christians who believe the Bible are not simply called to say that ‘one day’ there will be healing, but that by God’s grace, upon the basis of the work of Christ, substantial healing can be a reality here and now.”
But Christians who believe the Bible are not simply called to say that ‘one day’ there will be healing, but that by God’s grace, upon the basis of the work of Christ, substantial healing can be a reality here and now.”
September 14, 2020
Pollution or the Death of Man est un essai de Francis Schaeffer en réponse à un article qui accusait le christianisme historique d'avoir créé les conditions pour la crise écologique actuelle. Il y répond en articulant une vision chrétienne de l'écologie et de nos devoirs quant à la nature.
Dans le chapitre 1 à 3, il montre que le panthéisme (élever la nature au rang de divinité) n'est pas une solution, à cause de la romantisation de la nature, et de la dégradation de l'homme qu'elle engendre (si l'homme est aussi divin que l'herbe, c'est que l'homme ne vaut pas plus que de l'herbe). Le panthéisme ne peut pas non plus fournir l'absolu éthique qui est nécessaire pour justifier notre défense de l'environnement. Il parle aussi des versions de christianisme qui ne prennent pas assez au sérieux la Création et nos devoirs face à elle
Dans les chapitres 4 à 6, il élabore une vision chrétienne de l'écologie, que je trouve difficile à surpasser, et très équilibrée. Sa théologie de la création est saine, et il place justement l'homme par rapport à la Nature. Il montre également comment l'Evangile peut s'appliquer aux problèmes écologiques, sans erreur ni dé-spiritualisation de l'Evangile. Enfin, il explique comment les chrétiens peuvent être des modèles en écologie, sans se renier eux-même ni leur héritage.
C'est une bon traitement de doctrine écologique chrétienne, conforme aux Ecritures, et philosophiquement satisfaisant. Il n'y a pas besoin de beaucoup de lectures supplémentaires après celui-là. Je recommande.
Dans le chapitre 1 à 3, il montre que le panthéisme (élever la nature au rang de divinité) n'est pas une solution, à cause de la romantisation de la nature, et de la dégradation de l'homme qu'elle engendre (si l'homme est aussi divin que l'herbe, c'est que l'homme ne vaut pas plus que de l'herbe). Le panthéisme ne peut pas non plus fournir l'absolu éthique qui est nécessaire pour justifier notre défense de l'environnement. Il parle aussi des versions de christianisme qui ne prennent pas assez au sérieux la Création et nos devoirs face à elle
Dans les chapitres 4 à 6, il élabore une vision chrétienne de l'écologie, que je trouve difficile à surpasser, et très équilibrée. Sa théologie de la création est saine, et il place justement l'homme par rapport à la Nature. Il montre également comment l'Evangile peut s'appliquer aux problèmes écologiques, sans erreur ni dé-spiritualisation de l'Evangile. Enfin, il explique comment les chrétiens peuvent être des modèles en écologie, sans se renier eux-même ni leur héritage.
C'est une bon traitement de doctrine écologique chrétienne, conforme aux Ecritures, et philosophiquement satisfaisant. Il n'y a pas besoin de beaucoup de lectures supplémentaires après celui-là. Je recommande.
May 7, 2020
As he so often does, Schaeffer refocuses our look at ecology and asks "why should man care about the world today?" Like so many times and in so many areas, he falls outside of both modern "camps" on this issue, and points to the fact that Christians' response towards nature should be different - we are called to care for creation since God created to bring beauty and function to our world. If we lean to heavily on it's beauty, we deify it, or if we lean to heavily on the function side, it loses it's inherent value. It should cause us to reflect how do I respond to the natural crisis' of the world.
January 16, 2024
Definitely a good read in light of how climate change/action is the hot topic. Christians need answers and really we have the only world view that can give coherent solutions to the issues we are facing. You must read this 🫵
October 21, 2020
Much better than I expected, and thankfully, Schaeffer doesn’t go much beyond the biblical bounds (although there is one big place I disagree with him on, see below).
The book argument is pretty simple:
- In chapter 1, Schaeffer makes it plain that there is a problem in general with how we as a human race are treating nature.
- In chapter 2, Schaeffer helpfully shows that, in response to this, modern man is turning to pantheism—believing all is one, and *that* is why we should care for nature. But Schaeffer shows that this won’t work. This only further denigrates nature and man himself. Moreover, it provides no good, sufficient answers. And in the end, it is only pragmatic.
- In chapter 3, Schaeffer then continues by showing two other bad answers, these time “Christian” ones. First, sometimes Christians are say the only valuable things are the heavenly (and not earthly). Second, and similarly, sometimes Christians separate the secular and spiritual, matter and spirit, making only the spiritual stuff important (this is Platonic). Both, Schaeffer says, are inaduequate and unbiblical. And in fact, many non-Christians blame Christians for the ecological crisis because so many Christians have had such a Platonic view.
- Then in chapter 4, Schaeffer finally gives the Christian position, and it is classic Schaeffer. In short, we believe we are different from creation (imago Dei), but also that we are part of creation (fellow creatures). Moreover, creation is deemed very good by the Creator. As a result, we have reason to see nature as separate than us, “lower,” but also as incredibly valuable since it was made by the God we love.
- In chapter 5 then, Schaeffer continues with his typical four areas of the fall: man to God, man to self, man to man, man to nature. Here he argues that in each area, there should be substantial healing, until the Lord comes and totally heals them all.
- Then in chapter 6, he gets the most practical. But even here, his main point is that we should only use nature for reasons, and not just cruelly cut down a tree for no purpose, or kill an ant for no purpose. He argues here that the church must show forth their belief in the value of nature as created by God, for God’s glory but also as an apologetic.
Overall, I think most of that is spot on. I appreciate Schaeffer’s main point is that Christians 1) have a rational base for why nature is different but also valuable, and 2) that we should consciously show forth that value in how we treat nature, namely, by not intentionally just destroying it. I agree with that 100%.
What I disagree with (but only a bit) is Schaeffer applying the substantial healing to creation and then giving Christians the imperative to pursue that substantial healing. Here’s what I mean. In the four areas of the fall (man to God, man to self, man to man, man to creation), it is clear that each will be totally restored when Christ returns. But, as Schaeffer points out, there’s also places, like Romans 6, where, *because* it will be restored, we should seek that restoration to begin now. Particularly, in Romans 6 this has to do with the man to God and man to man relationships in regards to sin: we’re right with God and one day we’ll be totally renewed, *and so now* live like it and start that renewal.
But does the Scripture ever make that imperatival connection in terms of pursuing the man to nature healing? I don’t think so. It does in the other areas—man to God: we are to love God; man to self: we are to seek holiness and love others as ourselves; man to others: we are to love. But man to nature? No imperative given.
So, yes, I agree that we should not intentionally destroy the creation. We are to value it. And I think this is Schaeffer’s emphasis throughout the book, so I’m thankful. But to put on man an imperative to go and begin or act upon the final restoration that’s to come (and is talked about in Romans 8)? I don’t see biblical evidence for actively making that our pursuit now. Again, we shouldn’t intentionally destroy it. But there’s no biblical command for us to pursue the healing of nature because it will one day be healed.
Overall though, besides that small detail, a good, short book. He rightly shows, as always, why the Christian worldview alone makes sense. And here he just specifically applies it to the ecological problem everyone sees. And he’s right: only we as Christians are able to see us as we are (different from creation) but also value creation highly (as God’s good creation).
The book argument is pretty simple:
- In chapter 1, Schaeffer makes it plain that there is a problem in general with how we as a human race are treating nature.
- In chapter 2, Schaeffer helpfully shows that, in response to this, modern man is turning to pantheism—believing all is one, and *that* is why we should care for nature. But Schaeffer shows that this won’t work. This only further denigrates nature and man himself. Moreover, it provides no good, sufficient answers. And in the end, it is only pragmatic.
- In chapter 3, Schaeffer then continues by showing two other bad answers, these time “Christian” ones. First, sometimes Christians are say the only valuable things are the heavenly (and not earthly). Second, and similarly, sometimes Christians separate the secular and spiritual, matter and spirit, making only the spiritual stuff important (this is Platonic). Both, Schaeffer says, are inaduequate and unbiblical. And in fact, many non-Christians blame Christians for the ecological crisis because so many Christians have had such a Platonic view.
- Then in chapter 4, Schaeffer finally gives the Christian position, and it is classic Schaeffer. In short, we believe we are different from creation (imago Dei), but also that we are part of creation (fellow creatures). Moreover, creation is deemed very good by the Creator. As a result, we have reason to see nature as separate than us, “lower,” but also as incredibly valuable since it was made by the God we love.
- In chapter 5 then, Schaeffer continues with his typical four areas of the fall: man to God, man to self, man to man, man to nature. Here he argues that in each area, there should be substantial healing, until the Lord comes and totally heals them all.
- Then in chapter 6, he gets the most practical. But even here, his main point is that we should only use nature for reasons, and not just cruelly cut down a tree for no purpose, or kill an ant for no purpose. He argues here that the church must show forth their belief in the value of nature as created by God, for God’s glory but also as an apologetic.
Overall, I think most of that is spot on. I appreciate Schaeffer’s main point is that Christians 1) have a rational base for why nature is different but also valuable, and 2) that we should consciously show forth that value in how we treat nature, namely, by not intentionally just destroying it. I agree with that 100%.
What I disagree with (but only a bit) is Schaeffer applying the substantial healing to creation and then giving Christians the imperative to pursue that substantial healing. Here’s what I mean. In the four areas of the fall (man to God, man to self, man to man, man to creation), it is clear that each will be totally restored when Christ returns. But, as Schaeffer points out, there’s also places, like Romans 6, where, *because* it will be restored, we should seek that restoration to begin now. Particularly, in Romans 6 this has to do with the man to God and man to man relationships in regards to sin: we’re right with God and one day we’ll be totally renewed, *and so now* live like it and start that renewal.
But does the Scripture ever make that imperatival connection in terms of pursuing the man to nature healing? I don’t think so. It does in the other areas—man to God: we are to love God; man to self: we are to seek holiness and love others as ourselves; man to others: we are to love. But man to nature? No imperative given.
So, yes, I agree that we should not intentionally destroy the creation. We are to value it. And I think this is Schaeffer’s emphasis throughout the book, so I’m thankful. But to put on man an imperative to go and begin or act upon the final restoration that’s to come (and is talked about in Romans 8)? I don’t see biblical evidence for actively making that our pursuit now. Again, we shouldn’t intentionally destroy it. But there’s no biblical command for us to pursue the healing of nature because it will one day be healed.
Overall though, besides that small detail, a good, short book. He rightly shows, as always, why the Christian worldview alone makes sense. And here he just specifically applies it to the ecological problem everyone sees. And he’s right: only we as Christians are able to see us as we are (different from creation) but also value creation highly (as God’s good creation).
July 27, 2019
Bonne intro à l'écologie d'un point de vue chrétien, explique comment la Bible change notre mentalité envers la nature. Peut-être qu'il aurait pu donner des exemples plus concrets tout le monde peut appliquer (par exemple gérer sa consommation etc).
March 31, 2021
Helpful small book to explore the issue of ecology from a Christian worldview. Schaeffer works to show how pantheism, and other pagan beliefs, cannot account for treating the earth properly. Only the Christian can do so with self limitation and a view for the future.
May 17, 2024
One of the most influential books in my life and a book that has so much insight on the present, even though it was written over 50 years ago. The gospel truly brings beauty and meaning to creation because it was made by the Creator.
"If I love the Lover, I love what the Lover has made."
"If I love the Lover, I love what the Lover has made."
July 17, 2025
Even Sartre said “If you have a finite point and it has no infinite reference point, then that finite point is absurd.” To me what is refreshing about this book, and so much of Schaeffer’s writing, completely insists that we must ground our thought and action in the objective reality presented in Christianity, the “reference point” of an infinite-personal God. That emphasis is clearer here than in maybe any of his other shorter works I’ve read. The application of this reality, here, is in ecology.
Much of his focus in this book is a discussion of how the other solutions don’t work— effective pantheism / westernized Buddhism doesn’t help because it reduces man and his rights to the same as everything else. Simple pragmatism doesn’t help because then we aren’t actually valuing nature but only using it as a means to the end of our own selfishness. Instead we should love the creation and view it in its proper place, as something made by the Creator to be what it is. In that way it is able to have value/purpose irrespective of our attitudes, but also it is able to be used by man in a right way.
He doesn’t give a lot of actual application for this (i.e. “we should endorse this or that policy”) but provides tools to make those evaluations ourselves. In that way the book is perhaps more timeless. I’m not sure that I agree with all his takeaways but I’m still thinking.
A quote I particularly appreciated:
“To Christians [the created thing] is not autonomous, because God made it, and he made things on their own level. The value of the things is not in themselves autonomously, but that God made them… The tree in the field is to be treated with respect. It is not to be romanticized, as the old lady romanticizes her cat (that is, she reads human reactions into it). That is wrong because it is not true. When you drive the axe into the tree when you need firewood, you are not cutting down a person; you are cutting down a tree. But while we should not romanticize the tree, we must realize God made it and it deserves respect because he made it /as a tree/. Christians who do not believe in the complete evolutionary scale have reason to respect nature as the total evolutionist never can, because we believe God made these things specifically in their own areas.” (p 32 in “Complete Works” Vol. 5)
Much of his focus in this book is a discussion of how the other solutions don’t work— effective pantheism / westernized Buddhism doesn’t help because it reduces man and his rights to the same as everything else. Simple pragmatism doesn’t help because then we aren’t actually valuing nature but only using it as a means to the end of our own selfishness. Instead we should love the creation and view it in its proper place, as something made by the Creator to be what it is. In that way it is able to have value/purpose irrespective of our attitudes, but also it is able to be used by man in a right way.
He doesn’t give a lot of actual application for this (i.e. “we should endorse this or that policy”) but provides tools to make those evaluations ourselves. In that way the book is perhaps more timeless. I’m not sure that I agree with all his takeaways but I’m still thinking.
A quote I particularly appreciated:
“To Christians [the created thing] is not autonomous, because God made it, and he made things on their own level. The value of the things is not in themselves autonomously, but that God made them… The tree in the field is to be treated with respect. It is not to be romanticized, as the old lady romanticizes her cat (that is, she reads human reactions into it). That is wrong because it is not true. When you drive the axe into the tree when you need firewood, you are not cutting down a person; you are cutting down a tree. But while we should not romanticize the tree, we must realize God made it and it deserves respect because he made it /as a tree/. Christians who do not believe in the complete evolutionary scale have reason to respect nature as the total evolutionist never can, because we believe God made these things specifically in their own areas.” (p 32 in “Complete Works” Vol. 5)
October 19, 2025
Schaeffer addresses the then-growing concern over ecological issues in Christendom. Schaeffer ties our ideas of environmental concern with our theological preconceptions. He argues that environmental degradation is not just scientific or political—it is the result of a wrong worldview. When people reject God as Creator, nature is reduced to a mere machine to be exploited. He argues that as Christians, we ought to care about God’s creation.He has three major points to this end: First, that Nature is created by God and called good. Second, that Humans are stewards, not destroyers, of the earth. And thirdly, that abuse of nature is a moral evil and a result of sin.
At the same time, there must be a rejection of the pantheism of many outside the faith who also care for our environment. Pantheism devalues humanity by equating humans with animals and plants. It fails logically—if everything is God, then everything is meaningless. What Schaeffer is looking for here is a balanced dominion—humans are unique but must care responsibly for creation. There are historical examples of Christians doing this correctly, as Schaeffer points to Francis of Assisi as a positive influence on the idea of Christian environmentalism. As Schaeffer wrote “Francis did not adore nature; he respected it as a fellow creature made by God.” Assisi is not a perfect example, certainly his followers drifted off into a mysticism of nature, but he is not necessarily the one historical person I would base an entire theological position off. That being said, this book was a helpful antidote for the growing suspicion of Environmentalism as well as a needed rebuke for those who just see caring for our earth as polishing the brass on the sinking titanic.
At the same time, there must be a rejection of the pantheism of many outside the faith who also care for our environment. Pantheism devalues humanity by equating humans with animals and plants. It fails logically—if everything is God, then everything is meaningless. What Schaeffer is looking for here is a balanced dominion—humans are unique but must care responsibly for creation. There are historical examples of Christians doing this correctly, as Schaeffer points to Francis of Assisi as a positive influence on the idea of Christian environmentalism. As Schaeffer wrote “Francis did not adore nature; he respected it as a fellow creature made by God.” Assisi is not a perfect example, certainly his followers drifted off into a mysticism of nature, but he is not necessarily the one historical person I would base an entire theological position off. That being said, this book was a helpful antidote for the growing suspicion of Environmentalism as well as a needed rebuke for those who just see caring for our earth as polishing the brass on the sinking titanic.
February 17, 2021
Because nature was created by God, Christians who love God who creates ought to think highly of God's creation nature and try to treat it with respect. That seems-- not radical.
And yet this non radical idea also seems to struggle dreadfully to get conservative Christian support. (In the opinion section of a rural PA newspaper published in 2020 I read someone earnestly opining: Even if there is significant climate change based on pollutants in the atmosphere, the important thing is getting people's souls saved. There was no consideration that, perhaps, people would be more interested in talking about their invisible souls with persons who could demonstrate that they show some level of care for the visible world around them.)
So here's Francis Schaeffer, who nobody could call a liberal, saying precisely that back in 1970, and giving a whole worldview to support it. Odd that I've never heard this book mentioned!
It is not, I would guess, a coincidence that in this book Schaeffer also suggests that the Christian ethos is one that 'does not do all that it can,' meaning that it imposes healthy limits on its sex-drive, consumption, and profit-hunger. This is perhaps a more radical idea. (Is it one that is found in the Bible it certainly is yes ahem libertarians ahem)
And yet this non radical idea also seems to struggle dreadfully to get conservative Christian support. (In the opinion section of a rural PA newspaper published in 2020 I read someone earnestly opining: Even if there is significant climate change based on pollutants in the atmosphere, the important thing is getting people's souls saved. There was no consideration that, perhaps, people would be more interested in talking about their invisible souls with persons who could demonstrate that they show some level of care for the visible world around them.)
So here's Francis Schaeffer, who nobody could call a liberal, saying precisely that back in 1970, and giving a whole worldview to support it. Odd that I've never heard this book mentioned!
It is not, I would guess, a coincidence that in this book Schaeffer also suggests that the Christian ethos is one that 'does not do all that it can,' meaning that it imposes healthy limits on its sex-drive, consumption, and profit-hunger. This is perhaps a more radical idea. (Is it one that is found in the Bible it certainly is yes ahem libertarians ahem)
February 21, 2020
A fascinating take on how Christians should interact with the environment.
May 3, 2020
A thoroughly Christian philosophy of the environment and man’s relationship to it, and a much-needed response to those who think a pantheistic view of man and nature is superior to the Bible’s view.
May 13, 2021
The information is so amazing and helpful but the author’s style of writing is a bit challenging to follow.
Read
February 2, 2024My two biggest takeaways: everything created by God has dignity/non-zero value because God made it, and, "The horror and ugliness of modern man in his technology and in his individual life is that he does everything he can do, without limitation."
May 28, 2017
This book is a good reminder of the way Christianity views nature. We believe in a hierarchy that makes humanity more valuable than the rest of the creation, but this does not mean that we can abuse the rest of creation; instead we are called to be good stewards and care of it. Schaeffer exhorts Christians to seek beauty and protect nature. The book also explores pantheism and why a lot of people are turning to this belief in order to protect creation.
I gave this book three stars because I found it to be reiterating things I already knew, but it is a good reminder.
I gave this book three stars because I found it to be reiterating things I already knew, but it is a good reminder.
October 13, 2010
What can I really say beyond: Francis Schaeffer, always brilliant! This is an essay Schaeffer wrote back in 1970 at the height of the hippie version of the environmentalism movement. He argues that environmentalism was originally an evangelical Christian movement promoted by the likes of J.R.R Tolkien, but the cause was "highjacked" by political radicals in a spirit of pantheism rather than Christian stewardship. Very eye-opening and enjoyable read.
November 17, 2010
This is a good, short book concerning man's dominion over the earth. Schaeffer writes out of concern for the destructive forces of modern man upon the earth. He sees the destructive elements in our culture emanating from materialistic Darwinism, not from Christian theology as many argue. This was written in the late sixties, so while dated in that sense, the foundation is there for Christians to learn from and to build upon. This is excellent and highly recommended.
August 2, 2011
It is true that the environmental movement has not been embraced by Christians the same way we have come to fight for traditional values and life, but Schaeffer's "Pollution and the Death of Man" has left a strong impression on me as to how a Christian should regard ecology. While Man has a special covenant with God, a covenant that binds us to our Maker unlike any other flora or fauna on Earth, we all share as members of Creation.
January 1, 2014
Excellent.
July 20, 2016
One of ðe few specifically Reformed approaches to ðe environment.
July 22, 2020
A quick reading this time seeking mostly for quotes and summary thoughts from a reading a few years back. High level overview.
October 17, 2016
Francis A. Schaeffer, “Pollution and the Death of Man: A Christian View of Ecology.” (1970)
Courageous and provocative polemic arguing for a greater response from the Church to take action against the injustice of pollution.
QUOTES:
This is something we must always be careful of. Words have two meanings, the definition and the connotation. The connotation goes on no matter what you do with the definition. Modern man destroys the definition of religious words, but nevertheless likes to cash in on their connotation/ motivation force.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 2)
Pantheism eventually gives no meaning to any particulars. In true pantheism unity has meaning, but the particulars have no meaning, including the particular of man. Also, if the particulars have no meaning, then nature has no meaning, including the particular of man. A meaning to particulars does not exist philosophically in any pantheistic system, whether it is the pantheism of the East or the "paneverything-ism" in the West, beginning everything only with the energy particles. In both cases, eventually the particulars have no meaning. Pantheism gives you an answer for unity, but it gives no meaning to the diversity. Pantheism is not an answer.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 2)
...the hippies of the 1960s did understand something. They were right in fighting the plastic culture, and the church should have been fighting it too... More than this, they were right in the fact that the plastic culture - modern man, the mechanistic worldview in university textbooks and in practice, the total threat of the machine, the establishment technology, the bourgeois upper middle class - is poor in its sensitivity to nature... As a utopian group, the counterculture understands something very real, both as to the culture as a culture, but also as to the poverty of modern man's concept of nature and the way the machine is eating up nature on every side.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 2)
A man who begins to take a pantheistic view of nature has no answer for the fact that nature has two faces: it has a benevolent face, but it may also be an enemy. The pantheist views nature as normal. In this view, there is no place for abnormality in nature.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 2)
The beginning of the Christian view of nature is the concept of creation: that God was there before the beginning of the space-time continuum and God created everything out of nothing. From this, we must understand that creation is not an extension of the essence of God. Created things have an objective existence in themselves. They are really there.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 4)
Christianity believes that God has created an external world that is really there; and because He is a reasonable God, one can expect to be able to find the order of the universe by reason.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 4)
If God treats the tree like a tree, the machine like a machine, the man like a man, shouldn't I, as a fellow-creature, do the same -- treating each thing in integrity in its own order? And for the highest reason: because I love God -- I love the One who has made it! Loving the Lover who has made it, I have respect for the thing He has made.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 4)
The man who believes things are there only by chance cannot give things a real intrinsic value. But for the Christian, there is an intrinsic value. The value of a thing is not in itself autonomously, but because God made it. It deserves this respect as something which was created by God, as man himself has been created by God.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 4)
Courageous and provocative polemic arguing for a greater response from the Church to take action against the injustice of pollution.
QUOTES:
This is something we must always be careful of. Words have two meanings, the definition and the connotation. The connotation goes on no matter what you do with the definition. Modern man destroys the definition of religious words, but nevertheless likes to cash in on their connotation/ motivation force.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 2)
Pantheism eventually gives no meaning to any particulars. In true pantheism unity has meaning, but the particulars have no meaning, including the particular of man. Also, if the particulars have no meaning, then nature has no meaning, including the particular of man. A meaning to particulars does not exist philosophically in any pantheistic system, whether it is the pantheism of the East or the "paneverything-ism" in the West, beginning everything only with the energy particles. In both cases, eventually the particulars have no meaning. Pantheism gives you an answer for unity, but it gives no meaning to the diversity. Pantheism is not an answer.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 2)
...the hippies of the 1960s did understand something. They were right in fighting the plastic culture, and the church should have been fighting it too... More than this, they were right in the fact that the plastic culture - modern man, the mechanistic worldview in university textbooks and in practice, the total threat of the machine, the establishment technology, the bourgeois upper middle class - is poor in its sensitivity to nature... As a utopian group, the counterculture understands something very real, both as to the culture as a culture, but also as to the poverty of modern man's concept of nature and the way the machine is eating up nature on every side.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 2)
A man who begins to take a pantheistic view of nature has no answer for the fact that nature has two faces: it has a benevolent face, but it may also be an enemy. The pantheist views nature as normal. In this view, there is no place for abnormality in nature.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 2)
The beginning of the Christian view of nature is the concept of creation: that God was there before the beginning of the space-time continuum and God created everything out of nothing. From this, we must understand that creation is not an extension of the essence of God. Created things have an objective existence in themselves. They are really there.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 4)
Christianity believes that God has created an external world that is really there; and because He is a reasonable God, one can expect to be able to find the order of the universe by reason.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 4)
If God treats the tree like a tree, the machine like a machine, the man like a man, shouldn't I, as a fellow-creature, do the same -- treating each thing in integrity in its own order? And for the highest reason: because I love God -- I love the One who has made it! Loving the Lover who has made it, I have respect for the thing He has made.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 4)
The man who believes things are there only by chance cannot give things a real intrinsic value. But for the Christian, there is an intrinsic value. The value of a thing is not in itself autonomously, but because God made it. It deserves this respect as something which was created by God, as man himself has been created by God.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Ch. 4)
August 15, 2021
Francis Schaeffer wrote "Pollution And The Death Of Man" in 1970. Udo Middelmann added an additional concluding chapter to this republished 1992 edition.
This edition also includes the two academic Papers on which Schaeffer based his response. The two Papers are "The Roots Of Our Ecologic Crisis" by Lynn White Jnr, and "Why Worry About Nature?" by Richard Means. Means wrote his paper building upon White's thesis, namely that the root of the ecological crisis is Christianity, or more precisely, our Judeo-Christian heritage despite living a post-Christian (their terms, written 50-60 years ago). Means specifies our Calvinistic heritage (poor old John Calvin cops it as the usual pejorative punchbag/straw man).
Their view is that the Christian (biblical actually) understanding of man's dominion over creation, and presumably our cultural mandate, have led us to rip and abuse creation ("our fair sister" said Jim Morrison of The Doors) for our own ends.
Now, to be fair, they are not suggesting we romanticise nature, like the person who attributes human feelings to their dog or cat, but that we reckon with our responsibility to consider our man/nature relationship as much as our man /man relationship.
For the sake of brevity, let me cut to the chase. Schaeffer's response was, for me, so challenging, that it has changed my thinking entirely on this. He argued that as Christians (and not just as Christians but as beings made in the image of God), we are also created beings, and therefore do share an affinity with all created things, in addition to our uniqueness as image-bearers of God.
White & Means argued that as the roots of our ecological crisis are essentially religious, then the solution has to be religious.
Schaeffer was warning of the danger of this line of reasoning leading people into pantheism - I call it the Pocohontas Syndrome - every created thing has it's own spirit. And of course, Schaeffer was seeing that happening with the hippy movement - rightly recognising our responsibility to care for creation (or nature), but moving into zen Buddhism /Eastern Mysticism.
Schaeffer was advocating a proper biblical response.
I have to say, this has been a bit of a paradigm shift for me. It is not right to respond as Christians with "Well the heavens and the earth are going to be burned up one day anyway", putting it crassly.
There really is an ecological crisis. And we have been far too passive and silent as Christians, perhaps even complicit, not just as "The Church", but personally, and individually as Christians.
Our mission and great commission is not to save the planet but to preach Christ and Him crucified. But we DO have a responsibility as stewards of God's creation. This is a significant book that ought to be reissued (if not already) and widely read.
This edition also includes the two academic Papers on which Schaeffer based his response. The two Papers are "The Roots Of Our Ecologic Crisis" by Lynn White Jnr, and "Why Worry About Nature?" by Richard Means. Means wrote his paper building upon White's thesis, namely that the root of the ecological crisis is Christianity, or more precisely, our Judeo-Christian heritage despite living a post-Christian (their terms, written 50-60 years ago). Means specifies our Calvinistic heritage (poor old John Calvin cops it as the usual pejorative punchbag/straw man).
Their view is that the Christian (biblical actually) understanding of man's dominion over creation, and presumably our cultural mandate, have led us to rip and abuse creation ("our fair sister" said Jim Morrison of The Doors) for our own ends.
Now, to be fair, they are not suggesting we romanticise nature, like the person who attributes human feelings to their dog or cat, but that we reckon with our responsibility to consider our man/nature relationship as much as our man /man relationship.
For the sake of brevity, let me cut to the chase. Schaeffer's response was, for me, so challenging, that it has changed my thinking entirely on this. He argued that as Christians (and not just as Christians but as beings made in the image of God), we are also created beings, and therefore do share an affinity with all created things, in addition to our uniqueness as image-bearers of God.
White & Means argued that as the roots of our ecological crisis are essentially religious, then the solution has to be religious.
Schaeffer was warning of the danger of this line of reasoning leading people into pantheism - I call it the Pocohontas Syndrome - every created thing has it's own spirit. And of course, Schaeffer was seeing that happening with the hippy movement - rightly recognising our responsibility to care for creation (or nature), but moving into zen Buddhism /Eastern Mysticism.
Schaeffer was advocating a proper biblical response.
I have to say, this has been a bit of a paradigm shift for me. It is not right to respond as Christians with "Well the heavens and the earth are going to be burned up one day anyway", putting it crassly.
There really is an ecological crisis. And we have been far too passive and silent as Christians, perhaps even complicit, not just as "The Church", but personally, and individually as Christians.
Our mission and great commission is not to save the planet but to preach Christ and Him crucified. But we DO have a responsibility as stewards of God's creation. This is a significant book that ought to be reissued (if not already) and widely read.
February 20, 2019
"Pollution and the Death of Man" by Francis Schaeffer is a book that I picked up because I haven't really looked into the Christian argument for Environmentalism. Surprisingly - or not, if you're optimistic about Christian Environmentalism - Schaeffer feels strongly about treating the environment ethically. Or at least, in accordance with how God wants us to treat it.
This book/ long essay came as a response to the essay "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis" by Lynn White Jr., where White traces our current Ecologic Crisis to Christianity's dominion over nature. Schaeffer agrees and disagrees. I agree with Schaeffer, bad theology does not mean that Christianity must be directly correlated with bad environmentalism. Although, one can make the argument that our lack of connection with nature is due to Christianity's dualism. Schaeffer does not disregard this & claims that Christianity often does a bad job at protecting the environment.
The most compelling of Schaeffer's arguments in this book is his argument that God created us one with nature (not in the pantheistic sense), resembling similar characteristics to animals & nature, therefore needing to bear some responsibility towards creation since we are a part of it. In his own words: "Am I only the hydrogen atom, the energy particle extended? No, I made in the image of God. I know who I am. Yet, on the other hand, when I turn around and I faced nature, I faced something that is like myself. I, too, am created, just as the animal on the planet and Adam are created (50)."
Most arguments are strongly intuitive and make grand claims about the failure of humanism, science, and the modern man, claiming that only God has a universal basis to defend his creation. These claims are of course so flawed that I won't address them here. It is a conversation worth having, however.
Expect more brief reviews on some books about Climate Change, animal rights, and Climate Change deniers in the next couple of weeks. .
This book/ long essay came as a response to the essay "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis" by Lynn White Jr., where White traces our current Ecologic Crisis to Christianity's dominion over nature. Schaeffer agrees and disagrees. I agree with Schaeffer, bad theology does not mean that Christianity must be directly correlated with bad environmentalism. Although, one can make the argument that our lack of connection with nature is due to Christianity's dualism. Schaeffer does not disregard this & claims that Christianity often does a bad job at protecting the environment.
The most compelling of Schaeffer's arguments in this book is his argument that God created us one with nature (not in the pantheistic sense), resembling similar characteristics to animals & nature, therefore needing to bear some responsibility towards creation since we are a part of it. In his own words: "Am I only the hydrogen atom, the energy particle extended? No, I made in the image of God. I know who I am. Yet, on the other hand, when I turn around and I faced nature, I faced something that is like myself. I, too, am created, just as the animal on the planet and Adam are created (50)."
Most arguments are strongly intuitive and make grand claims about the failure of humanism, science, and the modern man, claiming that only God has a universal basis to defend his creation. These claims are of course so flawed that I won't address them here. It is a conversation worth having, however.
Expect more brief reviews on some books about Climate Change, animal rights, and Climate Change deniers in the next couple of weeks. .
October 30, 2024
Pollution and the Death of Man by Francis A. Schaeffer is a thought-provoking exploration of ecology from a Christian worldview. Despite its age, its insights remain surprisingly relevant. The first half of the book dives into some technical discussions, referencing philosophical and theological concepts that can be quite challenging without prior knowledge of thinkers he mentions. As result, I'd recommend supplementing it with background reading on Pantheism and the philosophers referenced work. Having this background would aid the readers ability to fully comprehend and appreciate his arguments.
Once Schaeffer transitions to discussing the Christian worldview and its relationship to nature, his ideas become far more accessible and engaging. He argues that because both humans and nature are God's creation, these exists a level of equality between us, and as result nature should not be seen as "less." This perspective offers a means for Christians to approach environmental issues and encourages a renewed sense of responsibility towards environmental stewardship. Overall the book provides a solid foundation for understanding Christian environmentalism, making it a thoughtful, concise read that does a great job of bridging the gap between faith and ecological ethics.
Once Schaeffer transitions to discussing the Christian worldview and its relationship to nature, his ideas become far more accessible and engaging. He argues that because both humans and nature are God's creation, these exists a level of equality between us, and as result nature should not be seen as "less." This perspective offers a means for Christians to approach environmental issues and encourages a renewed sense of responsibility towards environmental stewardship. Overall the book provides a solid foundation for understanding Christian environmentalism, making it a thoughtful, concise read that does a great job of bridging the gap between faith and ecological ethics.
May 3, 2025
Great take on a Christian's perspective to ecology. Francis critics two authors throughout the book, challenging the morale dilemma we face to man's relationship to nature...while looking at how our post Judeo-Christian era has failed to reclaim a healthy biblical perspective on this subject. He proposes that we can't deal with this morale issue with a pragmatic solution. it's a religious issue that must be resolved through religion. and Christianity expressed rightly, is the only holistic solution.
I am reminded that to love God is to love all that he has made, and to not just see His creation as a lesson or an apologetic tool (these can be good applications of course). we must see ourselves as creatures along with the rest of creation, only elevated by our status as an image bearer of God. Lord, give me eyes to see your world as you see it. to treat all of your creation with honor, respect and care, rather than exploit it on my own whim. Allow me to be sensitive to the harms and corruption man has dealt to nature, yet may I not Romanticize creation. keep me in check to love the tree as a tree. the flower as a flower, the molecules of the planet as molecules. all that you have made and fashioned and established your covenant with. amen.
I am reminded that to love God is to love all that he has made, and to not just see His creation as a lesson or an apologetic tool (these can be good applications of course). we must see ourselves as creatures along with the rest of creation, only elevated by our status as an image bearer of God. Lord, give me eyes to see your world as you see it. to treat all of your creation with honor, respect and care, rather than exploit it on my own whim. Allow me to be sensitive to the harms and corruption man has dealt to nature, yet may I not Romanticize creation. keep me in check to love the tree as a tree. the flower as a flower, the molecules of the planet as molecules. all that you have made and fashioned and established your covenant with. amen.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews