mgpcpastor's blog

Having read about it on challies.com a week or two back I saw a copy of the The Green Bible in Koorong yesterday.
For those who don’t know, it is a version of the New Revised Standard Version with passages relating to creation, the environment or nature printed in green type. Additional essays are included to highlight Christian environmental responses. I won’t mention the authors of the essays for a while yet.
Some observations: if you think red letters are hard on the eyes, pale green will really test you out; also, the fact it features recycled paper, using soy-based ink with a cotton/linen cover should enable you to carry it into a meeting of PETA without too many worries.
But before you run out to get one for your vegan friend, here are  some issues for thought: what are we to think of a Bible that treats some of its content as more noteworthy than other. The same observation can be made of red-letter Bibles. Some times it is nice to be able to identify what Jesus said, but His words are not any more inspired than the others.
All the Scripture testifies of Christ, not with equal clarity, but with equal authority.
This brings me to the second point that needs thought: how does a Bible that focuses on creation recognize that such an emphasis is really on a secondary issue, because the primary issue is God’s redemptive work in Christ.
I recognize that the story begins in a garden and ends with a new heaven and a new earth. I understand our commission to be wise stewards of creation and the present cursed state of this world because of human sin.
But at the end of Scripture all the focus is on the Father and the Lamb, who are receiving praise and worship because of the redemption they have effected. The recreation is not the goal, it’s a secondary detail denoting the completeness of their work.
Now, I can’t honestly tell what the emphasis of the Green Bible is. It costs $45 and I couldn’t read it in the store.
On their website, the publishers tell us that: The Green Bible will equip and encourage people to see God’s vision for creation and help them engage in the work of healing and sustaining it. With over 1,000 references to the earth in the Bible, compared to 490 references to heaven and 530 references to love, the Bible carries a powerful message for the earth.
With a foreword by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and essays by Brian McLaren, Pope John Paul II and N. T. Wright, among others, I would assume a mixed message about the work of Jesus to say the least.
Why write about it then?
Well, the effort to publish a “Green Theology” could easily have been done as a series of essays in a book, without the green letter Bible. The production of this book seeks to claim legitimacy by association. If the Bible mentions creation then what we say must be true. The same sort of Bible could be produced with regard to money, all texts dealing with wealth printed in gold or all the texts about healing printed in blue. (What is the colour of health, anyway? Healthy people used to be described as being in the pink, but I don’t think a pink letter Bible would be too popular.)
This is not a rant against environmentalism, per se. This is different from producing a biblical theology of the environment.
The Scriptures tell us about Jesus and our need to repent and trust in Him for the forgiveness of your sins. As the endpoint of the Scriptures, our relationahip with creation flows from redemption. Any annotated or study Bible that does not emphasize that priority is not telling you the full story. The area of environmentalism, as with other areas of social response is under-developed within evangelical/reformed theology. Some see any attention to these areas as a departure from emphasis on the Gospel. I don’t accept that. We need robust, biblical, Gospel centered teaching in these areas.
As someone who aspires to be a robust, biblical, Gospel centered preacher, I guess I’ve got work to do.