Author: Evan Lenow

Christ-follower, husband, father, ethics professor

Why I Attend the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting

~ Evan Lenow ~ 1 Comment

I am preparing to go to Phoenix this weekend. Under any other circumstances, I really have no need to travel to the desert. The Texas Rangers are not playing the Arizona Diamondbacks this summer. The NFL lock-out will probably prevent the Cowboys from playing the Cardinals. And I have never traveled to watch professional sports teams play anyway. If I want hot weather, all I have to do is step outside on a blistering summer day in Fort Worth (yes, I’ve heard that Phoenix is a dry heat—dry like an oven). The reason I am going to Phoenix is for the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Earlier today I received a phone call from a vendor who specializes in marketing to religious groups. She wanted to schedule a time to talk in more detail about the “greatest marketing idea ever” that could help the Riley Center, and she preferred to do so next week. I told her that next week was not an option because I would be in Phoenix for the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. She replied, “I would like to go to that one day. It sounds like fun.” I retorted, “It’s basically one long business meeting. I don’t know if I would call it fun. But I enjoy it anyway.” After hanging up the phone, my response to the vendor made me start thinking about why I attend the SBC annual meeting each year. I didn’t grow up in the home of a pastor who planned family vacations each year around the location of the meeting (don’t laugh, there’s a good reason why the Orlando convention last year was one of the better attended conventions in years). I had never been to the meeting prior to the Nashville convention in 2005. I missed the 2006 convention in Greensboro and have been to everyone since then. I don’t serve on a board or committee whose attendance is required. So why do I go? Here are a few reasons.

1) Fellowship

This is an easy one. I enjoy the fellowship at the SBC Annual Meeting. I have received all of my post-secondary education at Baptist schools. For fourteen years, I attended Baptist institutions of higher learning. I sat in classes with fellow students who now pastor churches, serve denominational entities, or simply have an interest in attending the convention. Each year, I have standing lunch/dinner/dessert appointments with classmates from college or seminary. I look forward to those times each year.

In addition, I have served as an administrator and professor at Southwestern Seminary for over four years. It was probably last year that I had my first run-in with former students. I have officially taught long enough here that my students see me and come tell me what they are doing in ministry since graduating from SWBTS. The funny thing about that is I still do the same with some of my former professors at Mississippi College and Southeastern Seminary.

Even though I am on the low end of the age scale at the annual meeting (I turn 33 on the final day of the convention), I find the fellowship with both the younger and older pastors, students, messengers, etc to be a motivating factor for wanting to attend. Contrary to popular opinion, the annual meeting is not simply composed of “gray-hairs.” There are those of us younger folks who like to attend as well.

2) Encouragement

The next reason to come to the annual meeting is the encouragement I receive. This comes in a few different forms. The first is related to the fellowship mentioned above. I am encouraged to hear what my friends, classmates, and students are doing and how God is using them. I typically come away from those conversations energized.

Another form of encouragement is found in the sermons that are preached during the pastors’ conference and as part of the convention. Typically, this is an opportunity to listen to some of the greatest preachers in the Southern Baptist Convention. Now my standards are pretty high since I was privileged to hear Adrian Rogers preach multiple times a week growing up. Certainly, the preaching does not always live up to his standard, but rarely am I disappointed. Most people bring their “A-game” to the Southern Baptist Convention.

The last form of encouragement comes from various reports. Yes, you can be encouraged by listening to reports that take up the majority of the time at the convention. Listening for the nuggets about what God is doing in different places gives me encouragement that we are trying to reach the world for Christ.

3) Conviction

It is hard to attend a meeting full of pastors, professors, and others interested in the life of the church without stepping back and evaluating your own spiritual maturity and commitment to serving God. It sometimes feels like Joshua addressing the people of Israel in Josh 24. In v. 14, he tells the people, “Now, therefore, fear the Lord and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord.” The people express their agreement to Joshua’s challenge, and then he responds in v. 19-20, “You will not be able to serve the Lord, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins. If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, then He will turn and do you harm and consume you after He has done good to you.” So what’s the deal? Why challenge them if they can’t do it? They could not serve God on their own. I think the same holds true for us. We cannot serve God effectively in our own power. We must depend upon the Holy Spirit working in and through us. The conviction I receive at the convention is much the same. I hear how God is using others, and I begin to ask why I don’t see the same in my life. Upon reflection I am then convicted that perhaps I am trying to serve God in my own power. This is a helpful reminder each year.

4) Relevance

I don’t really care what people say, the Southern Baptist Convention is still relevant. Any student of Baptist history will see that the SBC has changed, adjusted, and morphed through the last 166 years. We don’t look the same. We don’t act the same. But we do have the same message—the unchanging message of the gospel built upon the inerrant, infallible Word of God. The gospel message never loses relevancy.

The question for the Southern Baptist Convention this year (and every year) is: Are we effectively communicating that gospel message to the world? The baptism numbers in the Annual Church Profile seem to suggest the answer is no. Of course, numbers are numbers—they can say lots of things. However, the future of the Southern Baptist Convention and the church is dependent upon the proclamation of the gospel (Rom 10:14-15).

How will we best utilize our collective resources to proclaim the gospel? Those decisions will be made at the annual meeting of the SBC. And that is why I attend. I hope to see you there. If not this year, hopefully we will meet at one in the future.

Image credit.

It’s the End of the World as We Know It

~ Evan Lenow ~ 3 Comments

In 1987, the band R.E.M. released a song entitled, “It’s the End of the World as We Know It.” For those of us who were old enough to remember that song in the late ‘80’s (and subsequently released a few more times on “Best Of” and compilation albums), we get that catchy tune stuck in our heads and then finish the line, “and I feel fine…” (I apologize to all of you who now have the song permanently on repeat in your head). For some reason, that song has popped into my head any time I think of the claims of the doomsday “prophet” Harold Camping and his prophecy that the world will come to an end on May 21, 2011.

I had seen the billboards and read news articles about Camping’s prediction, but I decided to go to his website and read his argument for myself a couple of weeks ago. I think the logic of his argument may leave you speechless, but not in a good way. Let me summarize.

Camping claims that he can prove definitively that the flood (Genesis 6-9) occurred in 4990 B.C., although he does not offer that proof with his current claims. Then he uses 2 Peter 3:8 as a hermeneutical grid for the interpretation of God’s revelation and time. Peter writes, “But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.” Based on a literal interpretation of that verse, Camping argues that God gave mankind 7,000 years to repent before the judgment based on the statement in Gen 7:4 that God told Noah the flood would start 7 days after he gathered the animals to the ark. Since Camping believes 7 days equals 7,000 years, we get to 2011.

Next, he believes that the exact date of the crucifixion of Jesus was April 1, 33 A.D. He has calculated that there are 722,500 days between April 1, 33 and May 21, 2011 taking into account leap years, etc. Camping believes this is a significant number because you can multiply 5x10x17x5x10x17 to get 722,500. According to his numerology, 5 is the number of atonement or redemption, 10 is the number of completeness, and 17 is the number of heaven. Since these numbers ought to be doubled, or repeated, for significance (based on 2 Peter 3:8), then the multiplication sequence brings us to the number of days until the rapture.

Here is Camping’s conclusion to his argument:

We must comment further about the incredible nature of this proof which is completely based on Biblical information.

1. April 1, 33 A.D. is the date God focuses our attention on, how Christ died to atone for our sins as Christ was crucified on that day. The number 5 also focuses on that day, inasmuch as it can spiritually signify the atonement.

2. Our salvation is entirely completed at the time believers receive their eternally alive resurrected bodies. This is what happens on the day of the Rapture, May 21, 2011. Thus the period of April 1, 33 A.D. to May 21, 2011 (inclusive) is the complete period from the time God shows us how our salvation was accomplished to the time our salvation has been entirely completed. This coincides perfectly with the number 10, which signifies completeness.

3. On May 21, 2011, the date of the Rapture, each and every saved person goes to Heaven because his salvation is altogether completed. The number 17 fits perfectly because it signifies Heaven when it has spiritual meaning.

4. The doubling of the numbers 5 x 10 x 17 like the doubling of the phrase “a day is as a thousand years” assures us that the truth of these proofs is established by God and will shortly come to pass. Isn’t it amazing that God uses this doubling principle to further guarantee that the date May 21, 2011 is absolutely certain, even as God has used it to absolutely assure us that Judgment Day is exactly 7,000 years after the flood of Noah’s day.

Indeed, in the face of all of this incredible information, how can anyone dare to dispute with the Bible concerning the absolute truth that the beginning of the Day of Judgment together with the Rapture will occur on May 21, 2011.

Thus, Camping and his followers reach the conclusion that May 21, 2011 is “the end of the world as we know it” (my apologies to R.E.M.). Of course similar predictions have been made before by Camping and others. Camping made similar predictions for 1988 (he claims on his website that the church age ended on May 21, 1988) and 1994. Similar predictions by other groups include the infamous prediction by William Miller that the rapture would occur on March 21, 1844. This failed prediction led to the founding of the Adventist Church.

What are we to make of all this? I want to offer two thoughts. First, Scripture makes it clear that anything stated by a true prophet of God will indeed come true. If it does not come to pass, then we are not to fear (or respect) such a prophet. In Deuteronomy 18:22, we read, “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.” We have seen these predictions before from Harold Camping and others. They claim to speak for the Lord with incontrovertible proof that God has revealed to them his plans. They have all been wrong about the end of the world. Camping lost credibility when his previous predictions failed, and Scripture clearly states that we are not to fear him. In fact, other so-called prophets in Scripture subsequently received the moniker “false prophet.” I believe the same holds true here.

Second, Jesus made it perfectly clear that no one knows the day or time of his return. In Matthew 24:36, Jesus says, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, not the Son, but the Father alone.” Earlier in that same discussion with his disciples, Jesus warns them against false prophets who will attempt to lead them astray (Matthew 24:4-5, 11, 23-26). Harold Camping claims to know what Jesus himself claims not to know. This is dangerous territory—territory that I will avoid at all costs.

What should we do then? I believe we should heed the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:14 when he says, “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.” Let’s proclaim the gospel message to the ends of the earth, not for the purpose of ushering in the end of the world, but because we have been commissioned to do so (Matthew 28:19-20).

If God wills, I plan to teach my class at church on May 22. We’ll be starting a new series on the life of Christ. We do not know what our lives will be like tomorrow for we are just a vapor (James 4:14-15). However, we do not fear the prophets who claim to speak for God yet do not exhibit the biblical evidence of being prophets. If the end of the world comes tomorrow, it has nothing to do with Camping’s “prophecy.” My guess is that we will be exercising this speculation again as we approach December 21, 2012—the supposed end of the Mayan calendar.

On the Death of a Terrorist

~ Evan Lenow ~ 5 Comments

On the evening of May 1, 2011, the President of the United States announced the death of one of the world’s most infamous terrorists, Osama bin Laden. Almost immediately after President Obama’s official announcement, spontaneous celebrations broke out in front of the White House, at Ground Zero, and around the country. News of such celebrations left me a little hollow. I certainly want to rejoice that the face of terrorism is no longer able to devise wicked schemes for destroying other lives, but I am also saddened by the fact that a soul now has found his eternal destiny separated from God.

On the news this morning, I watched an interview with the mother of one of the victims on United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers rushed the cockpit. She had a balanced view concerning Bin Laden’s death. She said it was a bittersweet moment because justice had been served but it also served as a reminder of the tragedies of that day nearly ten years ago.

Twitter also lit up with news and reaction about Bin Laden’s death. Most of the tweets related joy, happiness, and satisfaction in the terrorist’s death. Some noted congratulatory sentiments to Presidents Obama and Bush. Others cheered the efforts of the Navy SEALS who carried out the plan to attack Bin Laden’s compound.

Finally, the crowd at the nationally-televised baseball game between the New York Mets and the Philadelphia Phillies began chants of “U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A” as the news of the announcement spread via social media, text messages, and emails.

So, what is the proper biblical reaction to the death of a terrorist? How should we feel? Should we join the crowds and rejoice in the streets? Should we cry over a soul eternally condemned to hell? Should we feel justified in a country that diligently pursued a perpetrator and administered justice? I want to provide three thoughts for consideration as we reflect upon the death of a terrorist.

First, we can know that justice was administered by a properly established authority. There is no doubt that President George W. Bush struggled with the decision to wage a “War on Terror” after the devastation of September 11, 2001. Just as Presidents before him had carried the burden of placing the lives of their military in harm’s way to enact justice, President Bush had to bear such a burden. No one probably thought that such a war would continue for ten years before the mastermind of the attacks was captured or killed, but that is what happened. In my recent readings on just war theory, I was reminded of one of the first principles of jus ad bellum (just principles for going to war). The principle of legitimate authority requires that war be waged only by those that have the legitimate authority to do so. Historically, this has been interpreted to mean sovereign governments over nation states. Thus, the United States of America in her sovereign authority waged war in order to administer justice for evils perpetrated against her people.

In Romans 13:1-4. Paul describes the role of the government in administering justice. He writes:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Note the final line of the quotation (v. 4). The governing authority “is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” From a biblical standpoint, we can rest assured that the American government has fulfilled its God-given duty in bringing wrath on one who practices evil.

Second, we can lament that a life has been taken. But you may protest, “Bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of thousands, why should we lament the death of such a wicked man?” We lament because that is what God does. In Ezekiel 33:11, God tells Ezekiel, “‘As I live!’ declares the Lord GOD, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways!’” God does not rejoice when life is taken, especially when those who have no concern for the truth of God are killed. Even when we see God taking the lives of those who have turned from him (e.g., Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10:1-7), we do not see rejoicing from God. It is solemn and terrifying that life is squelched for the sake of justice.

The more disheartening thing about it is the warranted assumption that Bin Laden’s eternal destiny in hell has been sealed. Of course, we do not know his heart nor the possibility of a last minute conversion to faith in Christ; however, it seems safe to assume that Bin Laden never placed his faith in Christ as his personal Savior. His actions did not give evidence of a life that has been surrendered to God. In 1 John, the apostle gives us a few thoughts concerning our actions that give evidence to our spiritual lives. In 1 John 1:6, we see, “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” In 1 John 2:11, the apostle tells us, “But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.” Finally, in 1 John 5:12, we read, “He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.” Based on Bin Laden’s actions and his murderous background, we have warrant to assume that his life was characterized by darkness rather than the light of a relationship with Christ. Thus, his eternal destiny would be separation from God in hell.

Finally, we should use this occasion as an opportunity to remember that sin has a drastic impact on our world. From the days of Genesis 3 onward, we have battled the effects of sin on a personal and global level. It is easy to point a finger at Bin Laden and say, “He was evil!” It is much harder to point a finger at ourselves and say, “I am evil!” However, that is exactly what the Bible tells us about ourselves. In Romans 3:9-12, we read:

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, ‘There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.’

Thankfully, that is not the end of the story. Christ sacrificed his own life for us and paid the penalty for our sin. As we see later in Romans 10:9-13, Paul states:

If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;  for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, ‘Whoever believes in him will not be disappointed.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for ‘Whoever will call on the name of the lord will be saved.’

Though sin has brought evil and death to us and our world, Christ has overcome evil through his death, burial, and resurrection. May the people of the world see the death of a terrorist and be reminded of their own impending deaths. As a result, I pray that they would turn to Christ with childlike faith and trust in him for their eternal destiny.

War, Peace, and Christianity Book Review

~ Evan Lenow

War, Peace, and Christianity: Questions and Answers from a Just-War Perspective. By J. Daryl Charles and Timothy J. Demy. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010. 413 pages. Softcover, $25.99.

With the United States involved in two declared wars against other nations and participating in armed “peacekeeping” missions around the Middle East, the question of the ethics of war and peace is a major discussion point in the American public. The interesting thing about war is that it often brings back into the public conversation topics that have been discussed for millennia. This is true of the ethics of war and peace, and specifically the just-war theory. At each major crossroads, the discussion is renewed, and people often approach it as a new doctrine when it has actually been around for more than two thousand years. J. Daryl Charles and Timothy J. Demy take advantage of this renewed interest in just-war theory in their book, War, Peace, and Christianity: Questions and Answers from a Just-War Perspective. Both authors are steeped in the just-war tradition, but they come from different backgrounds. Charles, who serves as director and senior fellow of the Bryan Institute for Critical Thought and Practice, comes from a criminal-justice background and has written several works on this subject. Demy is a retired United States Navy commander and currently serves as associate professor of military ethics at the U.S. Naval War College.

This book follows a traditional question and answer format with over 100 questions addressed in its pages. Those questions are divided into six categories to provide structure for the book: Just-War Tradition and the Philosopher, Just-War Tradition and the Historian, Just-War Tradition and the Statesman, Just-War Tradition and the Theologian, Just-War Tradition and the Combatant, and Just-War Tradition and the Individual. For the most part, the book addresses the classical development of just-war theory through the obvious historical sources of Cicero, Augustine, and Aquinas as well as the more recent influential work of Paul Ramsey and James Turner Johnson. For the just-war theorist already well-versed in the tradition, this volume does not add anything significant to the conversation. However, if one is new to the just-war discussion, this book provides a very approachable and thorough discussion of the topic.

Surveying the traditional principles of just-war theory, Charles and Demy provide useful descriptions of the principles of just war in the classic categories of jus ad bellum (literally, justice to war) and jus in bello (literally, justice in war). The jus ad bellum principles include just cause, right intention, proper authority, proportionality, last resort, reasonable chance of success, peace as the ultimate aim, and formal declaration of war. The jus in bello principles include discrimination (or noncombatant immunity) and proportionate means (159–73). The interesting addition that Charles and Demy make to this traditional development is the addition of a third category: jus post bellum (literally, justice after war). While the development of this category does not produce the sophistication of the previous two, it certainly is a noble consideration in the just-war discussion. The authors note, “Scant attention is generally paid to yet a third—and critically important—dimension of justice, namely, justice after war—jus post bellum. If, in fact, part of the moral efficacy of just-war thinking is right intention and a concern for the proper ends, then just post bellum considerations are requisite” (206).

The other unique contribution of this book comes in the final section—Just-War Tradition and the Individual. In this section, Charles and Demy bring personal application questions into the discussion. They ask questions about whether Christian love and charity prevent a believer from serving in war. They discuss the role of an individual accepting the government’s decision to go to war. They also consider the positions on war and peace taken by prominent twentieth-century theologians C. S. Lewis and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

The final questions address common misunderstandings of the just-war tradition and deserve a brief overview. The most common misunderstanding that has been propagated recently is the idea that just-war theory works from a “baseline presumption against war or coercive force rather than against evil or injustice” (389). The authors argue that such a misunderstanding—the presumption against war—leads to a completely pacifist position. Instead, they argue that the presumption is against injustice which then requires the use of force on occasion in order to prevent injustice.

As noted above, this book does not bring much new material to the discussion of just-war theory, but it certainly provides an accessible approach to centuries of debate on the topic. For someone new to this conversation, it is a worthwhile read. Even for the student of just-war theory who has read the primary source material, this volume can serve as a valuable resource to refresh one’s mind on the issues without having to wade through pages of ancient literature. Overall, this is a worthy addition to the library of anyone interested in the topic.

Does ‘Mother Earth’ Have Human Rights?

~ Evan Lenow

According to a Fox News report,[1] delegates to the United Nations are debating today whether or not to extend human rights to “Mother Earth.” Bolivian President Evo Morales has led the charge to get this item on the agenda for the General Assembly of the UN. The official UN agenda[2] lists today’s discussion as “Interactive Dialogue on ‘Harmony with Nature.’” Fox News states that the goal is “to discuss the creation of a U.N. treaty that would grant the same rights found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Mother Nature.”

The first question is whether or not “Mother Earth” has human rights. From a strictly literal standpoint, the only answer to this question is “no” because the earth is not human. It is a logical fallacy to ascribe human rights to the environment because it is by definition not human. However, that is not the only question. We also have to consider what the UN intends to do for “Mother Earth” that it is unwilling to do for humans. The news report notes, “Treaty supporters want the establishment of legal systems to maintain balance between human rights and what they perceive as the inalienable rights of other members of the Earth community—plants, animals, and terrain.” If these inalienable rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as proclaimed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, then the United Nations will have to provide some interesting definitions. If plants and animals have an inalienable right to life, then why does the UN support abortion? If plants and animals have an inalienable right to life, then what do they serve in the cafeteria at the UN headquarters in New York? If “Mother Earth” has a right to happiness, how is happiness defined for the environment? If plants have a right to liberty, where should humans build their homes and communities?

An even bigger question related to this event concerns the other pressing issues in the world. Why is the UN debating human rights for “Mother Earth” when human rights for humans are being openly violated in countries around the world? While multiple countries are at war with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and much of the Middle East is in turmoil with political rebellion and upheaval, does it not seem more important for the United Nations to address human issues among its member nations?

Fox News suggests that there is a bigger issue at stake in this discussion—an effort to overturn capitalism. They report:

Communities and environmental activists would be given more legal power to monitor and control industries and development to ensure harmony between humans and nature. Though the United States and other Western governments are supportive of sustainable development, some see the upcoming event, “Harmony with Nature,” as political grandstanding—an attempt to blame environmental degradation and climate change on capitalism.

In addition, the report states that President Morales has a desire to see the end of capitalism. The report notes:

Emboldened by this triumph, Morales’ goal is to emulate his domestic achievement as a U.N. treaty. In a 2008 address to a U.N. forum on indigenous people, he said the first step in saving the Earth is to “eradicate capitalism” and to force wealthy industrialized countries to “pay their environmental debt.” Morales presented 10 points, or Evo’s Ten Commandments, as they are affectionately called by devotees, to save the planet. Among them is a call to end the capitalist system, and a world without imperialism or colonialism. Respect for Mother Earth is Commandment 6.

In the 10 minutes or so that I listened to some of the discussion, it was pretty easy to confirm this idea. One panelist commented, “The dominant economic system does not correspond to reality.” Others made comments about the evil nature of the U.S. economic system. Therefore, while Fox News may sometimes be guilty of spinning their news stories to a conservative angle, it appears to be justified in this instance.

The final question to be raised regarding this issue is whether or not the United Nations is actually a legitimate governmental authority qualified to enact such human rights treaties. Yes, the United States and other countries all over the world joined the UN by treaty to work as an oversight body to avoid the catastrophes of the two World Wars in the first half of the 20th century. However, does the UN able to exercise the power to grant rights to nature? Does the United Nations serve as the governing authority over creation? I dare say the answer is a resounding “NO!”

The only One with the power to grant rights to the creation is the Creator. We read in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Fast forward a couple of millennia, and Paul states in Colossians 1:16, “For by Him [Jesus] all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.”

From Genesis 1–2, we see that God gave dominion over the earth—plants, animals, etc—to humans and that God told Adam to cultivate and keep the ground. By this, I do not believe that God was advocating a “scorched earth” view of environmental management. Just as in everything else, we are stewards of the earth to use it for our benefit and God’s glory. The earth does not have rights over humans because it was not made in the image of God. At the same time, we are to view the earth as a resource to be cultivated AND kept. I say to the United Nations, deal with problems you actually have authority to address—if you actually have any authority—and leave the earth to God.