What am I talking about? Have you seen Bindi Irwin's upcoming song, Trouble In The Jungle? You know Bindi Irwin. She is that adorable little 9-year-old who has endured the heart-wrenching loss of her famous father, Steve Irwin, in a bizarre accident with a stingray. Undaunted and cute as a button, she has gone on with her own TV show, Bindi the Jungle Girl on Discovery Kids, fighting her father's fight for the preservation of wildlife. So, let's see, here we have a cute little girl who is following in her father's footsteps fighting for animals. What could be a problem here? Why would I want to "critically examine the topic"? What's the foul?
I'm relatively certain that Bindi doesn't write her own lyrics. Further, I'm quite sure that at 9 years old she is not going to carefully examine the concepts and ramifications of the song. The idea of the song is quite clear, but if I try to point to a problem, I'm going to be assaulting this poor little girl. Well, I'm all about examining ideas without attacking people, so here goes. Let's see if I can pull this one off.
The song is one of the latest in the long-standing attacks on human beings. I faced the same dilemma when I was a kid (which wasn't recently). A perennial favorite, the Disney film Bambi is quite clear when it comes to who the bad guy is. Why did the animals run? Who killed Bambi's mother? Who started the devastating forest fire? The narrator says, in ominous tones, "Man was in the forest." Bindi's song tells us precisely the same thing. Here's a sample of the lyrics:
I'm afraid of grizzly bears, but don't you seeThe song attacks humans from various angles. We are a problem because we use animals for our own purposes. We are a problem because we continue to take more space to live. We are a problem because we don't offer animals the same level of protection that we offer people. Human beings, it seems, are the worst creatures to roam the earth.
Grizzly bears should really be afraid of me.
There's trouble in the jungle.
We find that mankind is not so kind at all.
I'm tired of it. I didn't like it coming from Disney; I don't like it coming from Bindi. I liked Disney and I like Bindi, but someone has to stop tossing out these accusations. You see, it wasn't us who put us here; it was God. It wasn't us who made us the dominant species; it was God. And while I can wholeheartedly agree that too many humans fail to properly care for our environment and planet, the bottom line is that we were given the role of dominion over the planet and we were made in the image of God -- two factors not included in the animal kingdom.
Paul expresses concern for the planet in Romans 8.
The creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies (Rom. 8:19-23).Nature has suffered because of sin. Paul recognizes that. Decay is the result of sin. Paul recognizes that. The answer, however, is not to try to save Nature; the answer is to try to save men. It is in "the adoption as sons" and redemption and, ultimately, "the freedom of the glory of the children of God" that Nature will find her release. Scolding humans and making us out to be the cause of all ills on the planet is neither true nor fruitful.
I don't wish to cast aspersions on Bindi. She's doing what she was told was a good thing. She's not thinking about what she's doing; she's feeling her way. However, if you combine Bindi and Bambi with the growing thought that humans are a cosmic accident, biochemical bags that simply occurred in nature without intentional cause or intrinsic value, then you will be setting the conditions for the necessity of annihilation of the human race so this poor old planet can continue on peaceably without mean ol' mankind meddling with it. It will be hard to fight off that argument if the environmentalists and the atheists have their way.
3 comments:
You evil man, you :-). Clear and concise thoughts BTW. The odd thing about Irwin is that I always disliked his rough treatment of animals. I'd be channel-surfing and there he'd be squeezing some poor snake by its throat. I'd invariably say, "Oh, leave 'em alone!" and click to the next channel. Thus I never watched his program for more than 2 and a half seconds.
The cry against mankind has religious overtones. Michael Crichton pegged environmentalism as a religion with its own gospel.
There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Wow, sounds like Crichton has hit the nail on the head.
People also say that our planet is over-populated and over-expanded. But isn't that what God instructed Adam and Eve to do? Isn't that the exact reason why the confusion of the languages at the Tower of Babel? If I recall properly, all of the people were joining together in one place, going against what God instructed. Here we have Man trying to defy the commands of our Lord.
Post a Comment