Very well done!  Bravo!

Given that Bill Moyers is a hero of mine, whom I have admired for decades, and given that I am a Christian and a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion, my first reaction was, "This is totally unfair, that David gets to do this interview, and not me!"

My next reaction was, along the same lines, "He asked him all the wrong questions!  What a waste!  I would have known what to ask Bill Moyers, and clearly that stoopy ol' David did not know what he was doing!"

But my third reaction, after I read Moyers' long and thoughtful responses more carefully, was, "David did an excellent job; he elicited from Bill Moyers some very important responses that probably I would not have been able to do."

So, thank you very much David, for this interview, and for the entire series.  I look forward to reading it more at length, and likely shall find more to comment on.

At present, I would just like to point out what is to me, a Catholic and a humanist, a very odd, recurring expression, "wrestling" with a scriptural text.  The metaphor comes from a puzzling little episode that begins at Genesis 32:24, in which the future patriarch Jacob wrestles with some anthropomorphic divine Being, and this Being (an angel of God?; Yahweh himself?), in the course of the struggle, blesses Jacob, and gives him a new name, Israel (32:28).

Or something like that.

Bill Moyers talks about "wrestling" with the important text, Genesis 1:28, "And God blessed them [the male and female human beings whom he had just created], and God said unto them.  Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."  (King James Version, with its quaint punctuation.)

The literal interpretation would seem to be, first: OK, boys and girls, this is the first commandment that God is giving you: Go forth and fuck; and the point is not to have any fun doing so, but to make sure the girls get pregnant, and in due course give birth to lots and lots of babies.

Then: Notice the military/political vocabulary, "subdue" and "dominion."  The point of all these girls' getting pregnant is so that their babies will grow up and, army-like, take charge of all the plants and animals.

This Creation narrative is a text written toward the end of the Babylonian Captivity, or soon after the reintroduction of the Israelites into their homeland (late 6th century, early 5th century BCE).  The verse in question apparently serves as an aetiological myth, first, to explain why human beings have sex and as a result have babies; then, to explain why human beings are hunters, gatherers, agriculturalists, pastoralists, and fishers.

N.B., notice very well, that in Judaism, the fact that men want to have sex with women is, rather oddly, an act of obedience to a divine decree.  By contrast, in contemporary Greek theology, Aphrodite is the goddess of sexual desire, and she inspires whom she wills; so, horniness, and what one does with one's horniness, are not (immediately) moral issues.

My principal concern is that Bill Moyers should confess himself to be "wrestling" with a biblical text -- that means, what?, struggling about how to interpret it?, with an element of fear if he should arrive at a false interpretation?  If so, that strikes me as really stupid, and beneath the intelligence of the Bill Moyers that I have come to admire over the years.

He surely knows as much biblical criticism as I.  He surely knows everything that I have written here.  He surely knows that biblical texts are words written by human beings.  He surely knows that human beings who write, write all sorts of odd, crazy, socially practical things.

So what in the world is he doing, wearing himself out by "wrestling" with a verse of Genesis?

If he loves the world, if he loves the environment, if he loves humanity, if he loves all living beings, why can he not just go with that?  Why does he require some divine commission, written in a biblical text?

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Here national religious leaders share their prayers and thoughts and stories about God's mountains.

Mr. Johnson will be heavily featured in Mr. Moyers documentary! I had the pleasure of meeting him last month, and know that he will move everyone who sees him speak to tears.

Appalachian Voices and several other regional organizations have recently put up a website called "iLoveMountains.org" in order to raise awareness about mountaintop removal. Its also a great educational resource if you want to learn more about the issues that Mr. Moyers plans to cover.

It exhibits the first ever National Memorial for the Mountains, which documents every single one of the 460+ Appalachian mountains destroyed by mountaintop removal coal-mining.

Please pay us a visit! And enjoy this short YouTube clip featuring Mr. Allen Johnson himself!

My principal concern is that Bill Moyers should confess himself to be "wrestling" with a biblical text -- that means, what?, struggling about how to interpret it?, with an element of fear if he should arrive at a false interpretation? If so, that strikes me as really stupid, and beneath the intelligence of the Bill Moyers that I have come to admire over the years.

The Bible is a collection of musings written by multiple obscure authors in languages Jesus didn't even speak hundreds of years after his death and is obviously completely open to interpretation. If Moyer's does not realize that, well, I'm with Canis.

For example, Yah-sh-ua (Hebrew) was translated to Le-s-ous (Greek) to le-so-us (Latin) and finally Je-s-us (English). The Hebrew alphabet doesn't even have a "J" sound in it. Look at the original name and the last one. They bear no resemblance to one another.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

The Bible is a collection of musings written by multiple obscure authors

Although I am not in this camp, there are folks (lots of them) who believe that the words in the Bible are straight from the mouth of God. Might I suggest, especially in the context of the God & the Environment series, that we are careful to temper what we believe with "I believe" statements? It's a fragile bond between evangelicals and environmentalists, and needs no extra straining.

Unless, of course, scientific proof exists that the authors mused of their own accord. Then by all means, state it as fact.

By wrestling with difficult and contradictory passages, one can arrive at one's own truth. This is the point of "wrestling" with a text as rich as the Bible. You read things you might not quite agree with, which makes you define more carefully exactly what you believe, thus transforming and strengthening your belief. [Just like a classic liberal education.] This should be an ongoing exercise, because things and people change. Bill Moyers is doing what a responsible thinker should do: constantly re-examine his beliefs. Many of us surround ourselves with people who think the same way we do, so we get lazy about this. The same goes for things like sexual orientation, in my book: it should always be re-examined.

Even if you're not religious, "struggling" with other texts is fruitful. For me, this happens with certain novels. I re-read them and sometimes find new truths the second, third, or fourth time around.

Sarah:

Scholars do, indeed, believe that the bible was literally written by multiple authors at different times. At any rate, I remember having to remember dates and authors in my religion class in college. "Straight from the mouth of God" doesn't mean that God literally wrote the Bible (unlike the Commandments). The divergence comes when one considers how much influence (all to none) God had in what was actually put to parchment.

The "obscure" and "musings" parts are sneaky and gratuitous, I'll give you that.

   BTW, the idea that humans are to have "dominion" over the earth is very much a Western idea, and is not shared in the same way by much of the world's population.

pace,

patrick

One of potential pitfalls of this series is that it will degenerate into a running religious argument having little or nothing to do with environmental issues or science. In hindsight, I can see that my post agreeing with Canis (an unabashed Christian) certainly fell into that category. I have edited my remark to meet your criteria that everything stated must be proceeded by "I believe" unless supported by peer reviewed scientific evidence:

The Bible is a collection of musings written writings by multiple obscure authors in languages Jesus didn't even speak hundreds of years after his death and is completely open to interpretation.

That sentence now meets your requirements for having reams of scientific evidence to back it up, although it may still offend many evangelicals. If someone had come back to my remark arguing that the Bible is the literal word of God I would not have said a word. Anyone who has tried to debate evolution with intelligent design advocates knows the meaning of the word futile. It always comes down to a matter of faith, which, because it does not rely on evidence, is immune to refutation. And rest easy, I have no intention of participating in a religious debate here or anywhere else.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Dominion...it means responsibility.   It means that Man has the Right to bend Nature to serve him.  And, as in any goodly owner or caretaker, there is some sense that Man should be a good taker -- for his own sake in as much as his relationship with God.

However, Dominion means first and foremost control and subservience.   Nature serves Man -- not the other way around.   This is the missing philosophic understanding of almost all environmentalists who are more like archivists trying to perserve and transform nature in to a Man-less state.

That is purely wrong.   The argument should only be how well we are being served by our charges.  We should be allowed to make note of "defects" in Nature -- where the Environmentalist only sees Perfection in Nature -- someone who understands Dominion can criticize not only Man's use of Nature, but Nature itself!

There is nothing perfect about Nature.   Every landscape is a battle of change and competion.  There is always incompleteness...nothing is static.  There is no Perfect State to go back to.

With Dominion we see a more dynamic approach to Nature -- one where Man plays a central part is shaping and Using the forces and resources.

Man gives Nature purpose, the way a Furnace gives Coal a purpose.   You cannot defend Nature apart from Man.


Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

Mihan has written some wonderful things, including:
<<
By wrestling with difficult and contradictory passages, one can arrive at one's own truth. This is the point of "wrestling" with a text as rich as the Bible. You read things you might not quite agree with, which makes you define more carefully exactly what you believe, thus transforming and strengthening your belief. [Just like a classic liberal education.]
>>

Right, I entirely agree with that, and indeed that idea has been an important part of all my adult life.  At present I am feeling rather miserable, coming home following teaching two silly classes, as I see it, on the hardest book to teach in existence, Aeschylus' Agamemnon.  Well, Dante is just as hard, and I have never succeeded with him any more than with Aeschylus, but for different reasons.  But that first choral ode is a real monster.  And the second one is hardly any gentler.  So "wrestling" is not even the half of it.  I feel like a fool for assigning it.

But as for Bill Moyers and the Bible, I feel that that wrestling is very different, and is not a wrestling that I particularly respect.  And because I like Moyers a great deal, I very much hope I am wrong.  What it looks like is, he is not wrestling with a thoughtful, complicated, intelligent author whose words and thoughts are difficult to comprehend and accept.  With biblical texts, the words are clear and straightforward; and what Moyers is wrestling with, rather disgracefully in my opinion, is how to live with the option of saying NO to God.

If God is asking something unacceptable, then it is the moral responsibility of every human being to stand up and say, "God, go fuck yourself."

An aside: "Dominion" and "subdue" and "rule" (used in some translations) are challenging words.  It is most certainly important for all people in biblical traditions to come to an understanding of them, personally and with respect to their communities, as well as to allow for different interpretations.  But I would not call that kind of discussion "wrestling."

Mihan writes this amazing, wonderful sentence, the likes of which I have never ever seen:
<<
The same goes for things like sexual orientation, in my book: it should always be re-examined.
>>

That is powerful.  That is revolutionary.  In fact, I think I am going to have it printed up on cards, and slip them into the hands of certain guys ...

Mihan also says:
<<
Even if you're not religious, "struggling" with other texts is fruitful. For me, this happens with certain novels. I re-read them and sometimes find new truths the second, third, or fourth time around.
>>

Yes, this is the earlier subject again.  But I do not know what "even if you're not religious" has to do with anything.  If I were not religious, I think I would find that sentence very offensive.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

The sex scandal and coverup in the Foley case is shaking the fundament of the fundamentalists.  And now eco issues might just give progressive evangelicals a chance to swing enough votes away from the religious right.

Like it or not, that is the battleground.  The environmental movement has to get "some churchin' up".  (Cab calloway to the Blues brothers)

Are we on a mission from God?  I think it's possible anyway.  Give the benefit of the doubt to our progressive evangelical allies.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

One might call me an environmentalist, so I think it is safe to respond to this. I and the environmentalist I know wish to preserve nature for the sake of human survival. Without clean air and clean water, we will die. Without complete natural cycles for processing our waste, we will die. Without nature to draw upon for resources, we will die.

A problem with "control and subservience" is that we do not fully understand the role of each element in God's Creation. We might destroy a forest for "jobs", but commit suicide in the process.

Environmentalist are ultimately CONSERVATIVES. They want to preserve the natural order because it has worked well in the past. Only a radical and reckless individual would advocate making nature submit to our will when we do not even understand God's intent and what will be affected by our actions.

An environmentalist is preserving what God created for us. He or she is not assuming humans know better how to operate the natural world than God does.

    Jack Buttram
    Rutherfordton NC

I grew up in a rich, secular household and was taught in school about Earth Day and the importance of conserving our resources. In college, I spent a year living in a small co-op with "green" friends.

After encountering God one day while alone in a meadow, I spent a long time looking for evidence before realizing the most realistic test of God's existence, for me, was to believe first and see what happened next. (Sort of the happy antithesis to the dreadful "shoot first, ask questions later" saying.) I eventually converted to Christianity.

But it was strange to suddenly be "one of them"! I had always thought all Christians were morons at best and evil at worst. (Of course, I've learned otherwise.)

Several years ago, I saw the Bible as many people's humble attempts to describe their own experiences with God. Now, after applying many parts of the Bible to my life, I'm amazed at the way seemingly ridiculous guidance can have beautiful results. I am more inclined to trust the Bible as being inspired by God.

Many of my values have changed because of my faith, some quite drastically. One that hasn't changed is my environmentalism.

The Bible doesn't say why God made Creation, but my personal opinion is He did for sheer joy. There is something about Him that is generous beyond belief. He loves extravagantly. Also, the Bible often describes the stars as singing or trees and hills as rejoicing when good things happen. It's hard for me to imagine that God would treat His own Creation with less than loving care.

In fact, as a side note, I'd argue that the environment had already become corrupted back when God kicked Adam and Eve out of Paradise and that the Earth won't be fully restored and peaceful until the "end" of time. My Bible study group has enjoyed exploring this idea. (If you're interested, start with Romans 8:19-21 as an example.)

I'm glad to see environmentalism taking hold in the evangelical community. For example, my local megachurch (www.frontline.to) used to include a Starbucks on the premises, but when missionaries informed the pastoral leadership about what's going on with greedy coffee growers, the church switched to a Christian company that offers fairly bought coffee.

I was thrilled and touched to see this happen, because sometimes it's lonely being one of the minority Christians who follow environmental news. Now if we can just get capitalism out of the church altogether. But that's another story...

Rita Nolan, 28

I think the reason a lot of Christians don't put environmental concerns at the top of their list is because politicians and some Christian leaders tell them not to.

I had an interesting moment when I heard Sister Helen Prejean speak. Someone asked what she thought about abortion. The questioner was obviously baiting her (I mean, she's a nun), but her response was so wise and unforced. She said that, with all the other suffering in the world, abortion is the least of our worries: when we've solved world malnutrition/hunger and gotten everyone out of poverty and established fair governments all over the world, then we can worry about abortion.

The climate crisis is like that: who cares about abortion if we're all dead or infertile?

That said, I can't just ignore some of these posts.

"The Bible is a collection of musings written by multiple obscure authors in languages Jesus didn't even speak hundreds of years after his death..."
     This is not quite the case.  Jesus, like any well-educated Jewish man, would have been fluent in Hebrew.  In fact, the title Rabbi implies among other things, that he would have committed the entire Hebrew scriptures to memory.  

"For example, Yah-sh-ua (Hebrew) was translated to Le-s-ous (Greek) to le-so-us (Latin) and finally Je-s-us (English)."
     If you're going to discuss language, please get it right.  Also, make sure there's a point.  The Greek for Jesus was "iesous" with an accent over the "i" making it an "h" sound.  Secondly, so what?  John in Spanish is Juan.  Peter in in Spanish is Pedro, etc.  We're talking about different languages with different sounds.

The usual transliteration of Jesus' Hebrew/Aramaic name that I have seen is "Yeshua."  But that is apparently a later development of the earlier name "Yehoshua," which comes into English as "Joshua."  If in fact the first element of the name refers to Yahweh -- and I am not sure that is beyond controversy -- , then it is possible that Biodiv saw "Yahshua" written somewhere.

He certainly did not see "Lesous" written anywhere.  

The diacritical mark written before the initial Iota in the Greek name "Iesous" is a smooth breathing, indicating that there is no aspiration, no "h" sound.

The Latin form of the name is "Iesus," not "Iesous."  Initial I in Latin was often written by scribes in a calligraphic way that evolved into the form of the letter J.  In Latin, the letter was in fact a consonant in this position, like the Y in "yes."  But in other European languages, that consonant in borrowed Latin names came to be pronounced in a number of ways.

I agree with your point that the fact that the same biblical name has different forms in different languages is no argument at all for discrediting the Bible.

But I agree with Biodiv that the circumstances in which the multiple biblical documents were written suggest that the Bible does not deserve quite the same kind of absolute authority that many Christians, and not just fundamentalists, are prepared to accord it.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Global warming may be esoteric and difficult to touch, but witnessing thousands of acres of forestland being whacked off the face of the earth and dumped into rivers is easily described as one of the most devastating sights one can ever behold.  

Our mission was not based on theology or philosophy.  We simply went out to film what once was a mountain range and to interview the people who lived in and around the destruction areas.  At the first sight of landscape turning to moonscape our director, BJ Gudmundsson started crying so hard she had to hand off the camera for she could no longer hold it steady.

If you are agnostic you will understand that mountaintop removal makes no logical scientific sense.  You may even wonder what higher being would create such beauty then create men with the will to destroy it.  If you are a person of faith then you may find the allegiance of religious leaders who oppose eco-justice suspect.

This is not just putting molecules into the atmosphere.  This is wanton destruction of the land beneath our feet - and it is coming your way soon.  Where there is coal there will be men with dynamite.  In the past ten years over 400 mountains have been lopped off and dumped into the rivers below them.  To understand this issue you just have to see it.

So.  Is God Green?  Give the coal companies another decade and the earth will be the color of gray slate and clay and the answer to Mr. Moyer's question will be no, God is Gray.

I have found that Christians and environmentalists often have similar views on a variety of subjects.  This ranges from a distrust of the "conveniences" our culture offers us (such as fast food and credit cards) to a desire to help the needy.

My reason for posting, though, is to comment on the existence of many other Christians, who may not fall in, or even near, the evangelical camp.

Catholics, certainly, have had some leadership from Pope John Paul II.  He even touches on the "dominion" question argued here:

In fact, 'the dominion' granted to man by the Creator is not an absolute power, nor can one speak of a freedom to 'use and misuse', or to dispose of things as one pleases.  The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator himself and expressed symbolically by the prohibition not to 'eat of the fruit of the tree' (cf. Gen 2:16-17) shows clearly enough that, when it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity.

The Greek Orthodox Church Diocese of America has posted on its website excerpts from the Inter-Orthodox Consultation from 1987 in Bulgaria, among other excellent articles.

Environmental issues like air and water pollution, depletion of non-renewable resources, destruction of the ozone layer, increasing nuclear radiation, deforestation and desertification of vast areas, etc. threaten the life itself on this planet. The gifts of science and technology are being misused by human beings to the extent of abusing nature and turning today's life on earth into a hell, not only for the many millions of existing people but also for the generations to come. The voice of those who call for a just development, equal distribution of resources and ecological life­styles is being systematically suppressed.

The United Methodist Women have a similar statement:

The Bible sends a strong message that being faithful requires just and right relationships with God, other human beings and with the rest of creation. Likewise, the United Methodist Church's Social Principles and numerous General Conference resolutions call for sound stewardship of the earth and environmentally friendly lifestyles that preserve creation for the benefit of present and future generations. United Methodist Women's environmental advocacy responds to this call.

Additionally, there are many non-denominational Christians who have found God to lead them into environmental action, as well.

In the end, the reason someone becomes an environmentalist is less important than the work that person does for the environment.

-Apta

I would not want to over-estimate the influence of the late Pope John Paul II's words on this subject, however.  For one thing, his reading of that text in Genesis is quite idiosyncratic.  More important, as I have written before, environmental issues remain a rather low moral priority among most Catholics.  Most prominent teachers among us RCs, and most people who wish to become prominent RC teachers, stick these days to a pretty narrow moral agenda, in which environmental issues do not have a place, however well deserving they truly are.

To be sure, there are a good number of relatively independent religious communities, of men and of women, who are doing excellent work.  And there are similarly a few independent-minded parish priests.  God bless them all.

But for the most part, the environment, pollution, eco-justice, biodiversity, the extinction crisis, deforestation, and, greatest of all, global warming, generally have not yet been recognized as church-worthy subjects.

Let us hope that that changes.  Very soon.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.