Is God an Environmentalist?
In 1967, historian Lynn White, Jr. published an article in Science entitled “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” In this article White blamed Christianity for the ecologic crisis that dramatically came to public attention in the early 1960s. According to White, the Judeo—Christian religion is the reason Western man is so insensitive to his natural environment. The Bible teaches, claims White, that nature was created for man’s personal use. Therefore, man is free to use nature as he chooses, with no regard for the welfare of the environment. Moreover, other religions, in particular primitive and Eastern religions, are more sensitive to the environment than Christianity and thus are a better source of environmental ethics.
White is not alone in blaming Christianity for the ecologic crisis. To this hour, Christianity is widely condemned in books, magazine articles, public lectures, and in other formats as the root cause of our environmental problems.
It’s true that individual Christians have wrongly used biblical passages as a rationale to exploit the environment, just as some Christians were guilty of misusing (and misinterpreting) other passages to promote slavery. But the truth is, the Bible does not endorse the exploitation of the environment, and, in fact, it teaches a clear doctrine of ecological renewal and care. Before we get to the positive, however, we need to turn our attention to the environmental objections that have been raised against Christianity.
IS CHRISTIANITY TO BLAME?
Modern man’s relationship with his physical environment is the same today as it was centuries before the Christian era. People throughout history, regardless of their culture or religious beliefs, have effected change on their environment for their own self-interests. To create better hunting grounds, tribes in North America, Africa, and Australia ravaged vast areas with fire centuries before the arrival of Christianity. Ancient hunters likely caused the extinction of the mammoth, mastodon, cave bear, and ground sloth. Deforestation in China occurred long before the influence of Christianized Europeans. Since antiquity, “slash-and-burn” cultivation practices have caused major erosion in many parts of the world. In classical times, overgrazing and the burning of brush and trees to create open grassland for stock devastated much of the Mediterranean world.
The earth is visibly more polluted today than in past epochs, not because of the influence of Christianity, but because modern technology allows one person with machinery to do the same damage as hundreds of people did with primitive tools and practices. And, of course, the impact on the earth today of over five billion people is immensely greater than the impact of only a half billion people estimated to have inhabited the earth in the seventeenth century. The point is, exploitation of the environment is not the product of Christianity, but the product of man. Man possesses an innate exploitative nature.
CAN NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS OFFER HELP?
What the Bible teaches about ecology and environmental ethics will be examined shortly. But first we need to see that other religions do not offer a satisfactory theological foundation from which to develop an adequate environmental ethic and program.
Solutions to the ecologic crisis will result only when humanity incorporates and applies a universal environmental ethic on a worldwide scale. Why? Because the ecologic crisis is a worldwide problem. Since most ethics originate through religious channels, it is not surprising that various world religions are consulted to play a leadership role in formulating environmental ethics and solutions.
As we’ve seen, all ethics must rest on a moral absolute (i.e., God) that is independent of man. Otherwise, ethics become relative, subject to arbitrary modification according to man’s self-interests. Under such a system, environmental ethics on a worldwide scale are impossible because one culture may decide that a certain action is acceptable while another may believe that the same action is ecologically immoral. For example, some Chinese think that killing African rhinos for their horns is perfectly acceptable, even though there are only a handful of African rhinos left. Other cultures, operating under a different set of environmental ethics, condemn this action. Who’s to say who’s right? Without a universal measuring stick, an unchanging moral absolute, any ethical system will fail to work on a worldwide basis. Time and again, history confirms that when man relies on his own scruples, he will ultimately seek first to fulfill his own needs. The question that needs to be answered, then, is not whether religion is the best source for environmental ethics, but which religion teaches environmental ethics from a moral absolute that provides adequate accountability.
The two religious perspectives considered more environmentally conscious than Christianity are animism (the religion of most primitive peoples) and Eastern religions (broadly speaking). These two views are thought to possess a reverence for nature not found in Christianity, so they are considered more suitable for developing an environmental ethic. Upon examination, however, both animism and Eastern religions disqualify themselves.
ANIMISM
In the 1960s, growing public awareness of the ecologic crisis caused many people to become interested in primitive cultures and their relationship with nature. In the United States, this interest focused on the American Indians. Indians were believed to possess a genuine feeling of kinship with plants and animals and a reverence for “Mother Earth” that related directly to their religious beliefs. With a few notable exceptions, American Indians did live in harmony with nature. They took from the land only what they needed and wasted little. But their ecological orientation was not motivated out of a spiritual reverence for other life forms. Rather, it was motivated out of a desire to manipulate the environment for their own welfare.
Early American Indians, like all other primitive peoples, practiced animism. They believed that both good and bad spirits indwell organic and inorganic nature (trees, animals, rocks, lakes, lightning, mountains, and so on). Because nature and the spirit world were inseparably bound together, the physical environment of the American Indian was not always friendly; it was often hostile and threatening. The American Indians’ preoccupation with the spirit world had, as its goal, the comfort and safety of man, not the comfort or safety of nature. Their intent was to manipulate the spirit world so such things as good hunting, good weather, and tribal safety resulted. Reverence for nature was a side effect of their religion, an attempt to appease a hostile spirit world, not an absolute ethic taught from God. Their reverence, like all animists, was based on fear of the unknown and concern for tribal and individual well-being. Indians lived in harmony with the land to survive, but their so-called kinship with nature was not motivated by moral principles, as we might like to think.
If we turn to animism for guidance in environmental ethics, we receive a good model for individual conduct, by and large, but not a moral absolute that gives us accountability to a Being greater than ourselves.
EASTERN RELIGIONS
Eastern religions don’t help us either. Because their view of God is generally pantheistic, God cannot have any power over nature. Only a God who transcends or is apart from nature (as the Christian God) can be the creator and controller of nature. And, of course, He cannot be expected to have any special interest in nature if He didn’t create or control it. This alone disqualifies all Eastern religions as a source of environmental ethics. A God with no interest in or control over nature is not likely to promote environmental ethics.
The Eastern religion touted as the most ecologically sensitive is Buddhism. This is so for one major reason. The practicing Buddhist seeks to eliminate all physical needs. The appeal of such a philosophy, ecologically speaking, is that less human demands should result in less ecological abuse and less consumption of natural resources. Buddhists are taught that all sufferings come from cravings, and if there are no cravings, there is no suffering. Freedom from craving allows the practitioner to focus on following the “eightfold path” which leads to “nirvana,” the highest spiritual level attainable. Whereas Western capitalism stresses consumption and the desire for material things, the Buddhist seeks to separate himself from material things.
The flaw in this philosophy, at least with regard to promoting religious-based environmental ethics, is that it is man-centered. The Buddhists’ willingness to eliminate physical needs is not motivated out of a desire to conserve natural resources. It is simply a by-product of their goal to reach nirvana. Thus, Buddhism suffers from the same flaw as animism. If environmental ethics are a side effect of a religious philosophy and not a guiding doctrine, then ethics have no moral absolute to curtail man’s natural tendency to exploit the environment. There is no accountability to God.
A second Eastern religion considered more ecologically sensitive than Christianity is Hinduism. This is largely due to their doctrine of ahimsa (the law of harmlessness toward all living things). Ahimsa has its roots in karma and the transmigration of souls. Hindus believe in the retribution in later lives for sins committed in earlier lives (karma). Because souls can wander through every form of life, all living creatures, even the simplest, are respected and preserved. Hence, many Hindus avoid harming any kind of animal life because that could affect their karma and therefore affect their future lives. The Hindus’ reluctance to kill animals has allowed cows and rats to consume enormous amounts of human foods while many thousands of people starve to death.
Do you see the pattern? Hinduism, like animism and Buddhism, demonstrate reverence for other life forms but not out of an altruistic desire to save them for their own sakes. Rather, this reverence grows out of concern for their own futures. It’s a by-product caused by self-interest, not a religious principle mandated by deity. To handle the environment as we should, we need more than non-Christian religions can provide.
A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF ECOLOGY
Now that we know other religions can’t give us what we so desperately need, we need to explore Christianity to see if it can supply what other religions lack: a theology that both teaches environmental ethics and holds man accountable to a moral absolute (God).
THE BIBLE SPEAKS
Throughout the Old Testament, God associates the welfare of Israel with the welfare of the land. He also instructs the Jewish people on how to care for the land so it produces their food and yet retains its viability (Lev. 19:25; 25:2–5). In fact, a common Old Testament theme is that the fate of the land was directly affected by human actions. When Israel broke God’s covenant, the land suffered (Ps. 107:33–34; Jer. 2:7; Hos. 4:1–3). The prophet Habakkuk reports that the Chaldeans’ downfall was vindicated, in part, because they had cut down the vast cedars of Lebanon, hunted its wild beasts, and violently misused God’s creation (Hab. 2:8, 17).
The Bible also teaches that God did not create nature just for man’s use. The earth and everything in it is God’s (Ps. 24:1; Job 41:11). God commanded all animal life to be fruitful and multiply, implying that He wants all living things to survive and coexist in a balanced, natural environment (Gen. 1:22, 24). Scripture also teaches that nonhuman creatures are of value in themselves and are created, like man, for a specific purpose (Job 40:15, 19). Throughout the Bible, God demonstrates that He personally cares for nature and finds joy in it (Ps. 104:10–14, 16–18, 21, 27). This is probably best illustrated by how He prepared the natural environment to support animal life (see Job 38, 39). God even purged the world of the effects of human sin through a worldwide deluge. Then afterward, He made a covenant with man that included all animal life. He promised Noah that as long as the earth remained, He would never again destroy life and would continue to preserve the regularity of nature (Gen. 9:8–11).
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY SPEAKS
The Doctrine of Creation
Just as God created and sustains the universe, so He established natural laws by which nature operates and maintains its ecological balance. He takes an active interest in what He created; He cares for His creation. And creation is intrinsically good because He brought it into being (Gen. 1:31; Rom. 14:14).
The Doctrine of Man
The key to understanding man’s relationship with the rest of creation is to understand that he has a dual position in creation. On the one hand, with regard to purely physical creation, man is equal with the rest of animal life in that he depends on his physical environment for survival. In this sense, man possesses a true kinship relationship with other life forms. On the other hand, man is created in God’s image and, as such, transcends nature and is preeminent over it (see Luke 12:6–7). This gives him the ability and responsibility to take an active stewardship role over nature.
The Doctrine of the Fall
Man has a natural tendency to exploit nature. That he has done so throughout history, including the centuries prior to Christianity, we’ve already demonstrated. This universal exploitative nature occurred because of the fall (Gen. 3).
After Adam’s creation, God placed him in the Garden of Eden and told him to “tend and keep it” (Gen. 2:15). The Garden was free of weeds, predators, and natural disasters. Adam’s job was to be the steward over God’s perfect natural environment. But, unfortunately, Adam rebelled against God, so he, along with his wife Eve, were expelled from the Garden. From that point on, man battled with nature to survive, and nature fought back with tooth and claw, thorns and thistles, and natural disasters.
According to Genesis 3:17–19, the fall resulted in an animosity between man and nature that did not previously exist. It marks the birth of man’s intrinsic exploitative nature. The harmonious relationship that God intended between man and nature was destroyed. The Bible does not say, however, that man’s caretaker role over nature was lost when Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden. The fall did not remove any of man’s accountability to God. Likewise, it did not remove his responsibilities as God’s steward over nature.
The Doctrines of Dominion and Stewardship
Let me take a moment to summarize what we’ve covered. God is the creator, and He loves and cares for nature independently, but not above, His love and care for man. Man is in the unique position, among all created things, of being one with nature in the created realm, yet he transcends nature due to being created in the image of God. For this reason, man was given stewardship responsibilities over nature. However, due to the fall, enmity developed between man and nature, and man began to exploit his physical environment to survive. This exploitative tendency became ingrained in all mankind, and its effects became more pronounced as the human population grew and technology developed. Nevertheless, man is still accountable for his divinely given stewardship role over nature.
It needs to be understood that the natural environment in which God placed Adam and instructed him to be caretaker was a paradise that required no exploitation for Adam to survive. So whatever the words subdue and dominion mean in Genesis 1:28, they definitely do not convey environmental exploitation. The Bible never grants us a license to abuse and manipulate nature. Instead, it promotes stewardship. This concept is best illustrated in the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14–30). The biblical definition of stewardship is caring for someone else’s property with the goal of improving that property. Thus dominion, with regard to the environment, means caring for nature (God’s property) as God’s chosen steward. God commands us to care for nature, and we do not own what we care for. So we are not free to use nature contrary to His wishes. And from all that we have seen, God wishes nature to be protected, to be taken care of.
MOVING TOWARD ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
CHRISTIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
Now that a doctrine of ecology is established, we can see a specific environmental ethic flow from Christianity. Here are some of its key tenets.
ANIMALS AND NATURAL OBJECTS HAVE RIGHTS
God created nature “very good” and provided His creatures with a healthy, balanced environment to meet all of their physical needs. Nonhuman life is of value to God, and man is instructed by the creator to care for and protect nature. Thus, wildlife and natural objects— including rivers, air, mountains, and so on—have rights. This is in harmony with those passages of Scripture that teach creation has value independently of man.
ENVIRONMENTAL ABUSE IS SIN
The Bible defines sin as “lawlessness” (1 John 3:4) and “Unrighteousness” (5:17). When man destroys a unique natural habitat, pollutes a river or lake, or causes the extinction of an endangered species, he is disobeying God’s instructions to act as a steward over nature. In refusing this task and abusing the environment, man rebels against God and engages in sin.
CHRISTIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS MUST CONTROL INDUSTRIAL AND TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT
Throughout history, economic profit and technical efficiency have been the main considerations in the development of new technology. Social, moral, and environmental considerations have been secondary to economic rewards. Ethical restraints must be imposed on technology to prevent it from exploiting the environment for profit without concern for the environment. The solution to our ecologic crisis lies in the ability of present cultures to accept universal ethical principles with regard to the environment. Only the Bible presents ethical standards based on a Moral Absolute outside of man. This ethic must be implemented if environmental degradation resulting from unrestrained industrial development is to be controlled. We need environmental stewardship as a basis for our care of creation, and only Christianity can supply the ethical framework for this to happen.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS CAN BE APPLIED TO THE ENVIRONMENT
Developing environmental ethics is no more complicated than extending traditional Christian ethics to the natural realm. For example, if the human sin of greed is removed from our relationship with nature, as we are told to remove it from our relationship with people, we will operate our factories and mine our resources for profit, but not at the expense of social and environmental degradation. If the human sins of covetousness and pride are removed from our relationship with nature, we will purchase smaller cars and houses and fewer energy consuming gadgets and conveniences. If mankind extends the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12) to include natural objects—that is, if we treat nature in the same manner as we want nature to treat us—we will not pollute our environment, destroy wildlife habitats, exterminate animal species, and we will be more willing to recycle nonrenewable resources. In short, the cardinal Christian principle of unconditional love, putting others before ourselves and giving without expecting to receive, can effectively and efficiently guide our ethical relationship with the natural environment.
No other religion or humanist philosophy in the world contains so precise and explicit ethical standards as the Bible. As long as man makes stewardship decisions within biblical moral principles, thereby caring for the whole household of creation, he will be performing his job as steward.
[1]
[1]Story, D. (1997). Defending your faith. Originally published: Nashville : T. Nelson, c1992. (197). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.