Global warming is real. The world population has grown to such a level that the world will not be able to sustain the current needs of humanity. Natural resources are diminishing exponentially. There are species that will be extinct far sooner than the natural order of evolution would have predicted. Debating the reality of any of these is no longer relevant. The only real debates that exist at this point are the degree to which humanity is at fault and to what extent should corrective measures be taken. Despite the fact that these debates are being had by people of all walks of life with varying degrees of education, very few people are actually competent and qualified to truly engage in such debates. That is not to suggest that these aren’t issues that affect us all and shouldn’t be considered by all, but that there is simply far too much propaganda from both sides out there that is driven more by agenda than critical thinking for me to add to it. However, what I can add to the conversation is my perspective regarding the Christian response. While the role of religion in environmentalism isn’t new, perhaps the smoke has cleared enough that there are opportunities to revisit the topic and gain fresh insight.
Religion, specifically Christianity, has not been a positive voice in this discussion historically. Lynn White outlined this view in “The Historical Roots of the Ecological Crisis.” There are three pillars to the theory: (1) Christianity leads to anthropocentrism; (2) Anthropocentrism leads to environmentally damaging behaviors; (3) Therefore, Christianity is the origin of the current environmental crisis. Anthropocentrism is the belief humanity is the most significant entity in the universe. It is hard to argue that Christianity has held this belief. Regarding environmental issues, many Christians still hold that despite the need for greater stewardship, man is still the only theme in the story of God. These individuals will likely pull from Genesis to argue that since God gave man dominion over all the earth, that we are simply more important. Point being- our wants and desires are more important than anything else. John B. Cobb, Jr., Ph.D. outlines the Christian history regarding environmental issues well. Cobb first addresses that the primary focus of Christian theology has been personal salvation. This situates theology to exploit its environment. More recently, there has been a shift toward the quality of life here and now. However, this has, for the most part, only shifted the focus from the supernatural to religious experience and psychology. Cobb continues to explain that there has been a secondary concern throughout Christian history with the “social-historical situation”. However, this social gospel has often focused on a liberal ideal of reconciling society. Cobb argues that the inherent dualism of these competing approaches is ultimately more philosophical (primarily Greek and modern idealism) than theological.
More recently, many Christians have had to concede that many of their beliefs were wrong. With the arrival of Christian-fundamentalist in the world of environmentalism, this shift only demonstrated the lengths to which many believers will hold to their beliefs regardless of rationale. The conversation, however, for many has moved toward the difference between facts and meaning as well as a division in all scientific circles between natural sciences and the humanities. With the many new perspectives on environmentalism and the compliance of most in scientific discoveries, a new discipline emerged: environmental ethics. The primary issue for debate is within the distinction between instrumental value (or the means to further some other end) and the intrinsic value (or the inherent value of nature in and of itself) of the environment. However, there is still a strong anthropocentric perspective within each that directs much of the conversation. Many hold that the real issue boils down to bioregionalism and that the true debate should be about social ecology. This is a pragmatic approach that attempts to validate the anthropocentric perspective. The final academic delineations regarding environmental ethics are within the theoretical definitions. Consequential Ethics hold that environmental ethics is about what is right and what is wrong determined by the consequence. Deontological Ethics maintain hold that what is right or wrong is not determined by the consequence but by our duty to the environment. And Virtue Ethics hold to a moral response based on broad values of right and wrong.
But what about the Christian response? Scripture obviously attests to need and appreciation for and stewardship of the environment. Scripture begins in Genesis 1 and 2 going into detail about the importance of creation in the story of God and humanity. Psalm 104 descriptively shows us that creation is about far more than how it serves humanity. And in Romans 8 we see the impact that the original sin of man had on the environment and the consequences therein. Regarding environmental ethics, Cobb suggests four views that Christians should have: (1) Recover the dominant Biblical view of the relation of creation and redemption where the covenant is within, not peripheral to, creation; (2) Wrestle anew with the love of the land where possession of land was balanced with health of the land; (3) To consider that we are, in fact, fellow creatures with other animals and even with nonliving things; and (4) Consider the integration of justice and ecology.
While I agree with Cobb’s suggestions and feel that they are incredibly valuable, I don’t feel that they adequately address the pragmatic issue of environmental ethical decision making from a Christian perspective. As someone who gravitates toward the left and as someone who loves nature, it would seem that I would hold a similarly liberal view on environmental issues. However, despite my values in protecting the environment rigorously, I am afraid that the Christian community has been led astray under social pressures to move toward radical environmentalism. Using ethical terminology, consequential ethics seem to be the dominant value while using deontological rhetoric. I feel that this contradicts what scripture teaches us regarding stewardship of the environment. In fact, I would contend that an anthropocentric perspective is healthy and not only compliments scripture, but prescribes a greater responsibility toward the environment. This perspective doesn’t negate either instrumental value or intrinsic value but could possibly merge the two into a dualistic and even naturalistic perspective that is descriptive of spirituality. This would also reframe social ecology where humanity is the guardian of nature.
Religion, specifically Christianity, has not been a positive voice in this discussion historically. Lynn White outlined this view in “The Historical Roots of the Ecological Crisis.” There are three pillars to the theory: (1) Christianity leads to anthropocentrism; (2) Anthropocentrism leads to environmentally damaging behaviors; (3) Therefore, Christianity is the origin of the current environmental crisis. Anthropocentrism is the belief humanity is the most significant entity in the universe. It is hard to argue that Christianity has held this belief. Regarding environmental issues, many Christians still hold that despite the need for greater stewardship, man is still the only theme in the story of God. These individuals will likely pull from Genesis to argue that since God gave man dominion over all the earth, that we are simply more important. Point being- our wants and desires are more important than anything else. John B. Cobb, Jr., Ph.D. outlines the Christian history regarding environmental issues well. Cobb first addresses that the primary focus of Christian theology has been personal salvation. This situates theology to exploit its environment. More recently, there has been a shift toward the quality of life here and now. However, this has, for the most part, only shifted the focus from the supernatural to religious experience and psychology. Cobb continues to explain that there has been a secondary concern throughout Christian history with the “social-historical situation”. However, this social gospel has often focused on a liberal ideal of reconciling society. Cobb argues that the inherent dualism of these competing approaches is ultimately more philosophical (primarily Greek and modern idealism) than theological.
More recently, many Christians have had to concede that many of their beliefs were wrong. With the arrival of Christian-fundamentalist in the world of environmentalism, this shift only demonstrated the lengths to which many believers will hold to their beliefs regardless of rationale. The conversation, however, for many has moved toward the difference between facts and meaning as well as a division in all scientific circles between natural sciences and the humanities. With the many new perspectives on environmentalism and the compliance of most in scientific discoveries, a new discipline emerged: environmental ethics. The primary issue for debate is within the distinction between instrumental value (or the means to further some other end) and the intrinsic value (or the inherent value of nature in and of itself) of the environment. However, there is still a strong anthropocentric perspective within each that directs much of the conversation. Many hold that the real issue boils down to bioregionalism and that the true debate should be about social ecology. This is a pragmatic approach that attempts to validate the anthropocentric perspective. The final academic delineations regarding environmental ethics are within the theoretical definitions. Consequential Ethics hold that environmental ethics is about what is right and what is wrong determined by the consequence. Deontological Ethics maintain hold that what is right or wrong is not determined by the consequence but by our duty to the environment. And Virtue Ethics hold to a moral response based on broad values of right and wrong.
But what about the Christian response? Scripture obviously attests to need and appreciation for and stewardship of the environment. Scripture begins in Genesis 1 and 2 going into detail about the importance of creation in the story of God and humanity. Psalm 104 descriptively shows us that creation is about far more than how it serves humanity. And in Romans 8 we see the impact that the original sin of man had on the environment and the consequences therein. Regarding environmental ethics, Cobb suggests four views that Christians should have: (1) Recover the dominant Biblical view of the relation of creation and redemption where the covenant is within, not peripheral to, creation; (2) Wrestle anew with the love of the land where possession of land was balanced with health of the land; (3) To consider that we are, in fact, fellow creatures with other animals and even with nonliving things; and (4) Consider the integration of justice and ecology.
While I agree with Cobb’s suggestions and feel that they are incredibly valuable, I don’t feel that they adequately address the pragmatic issue of environmental ethical decision making from a Christian perspective. As someone who gravitates toward the left and as someone who loves nature, it would seem that I would hold a similarly liberal view on environmental issues. However, despite my values in protecting the environment rigorously, I am afraid that the Christian community has been led astray under social pressures to move toward radical environmentalism. Using ethical terminology, consequential ethics seem to be the dominant value while using deontological rhetoric. I feel that this contradicts what scripture teaches us regarding stewardship of the environment. In fact, I would contend that an anthropocentric perspective is healthy and not only compliments scripture, but prescribes a greater responsibility toward the environment. This perspective doesn’t negate either instrumental value or intrinsic value but could possibly merge the two into a dualistic and even naturalistic perspective that is descriptive of spirituality. This would also reframe social ecology where humanity is the guardian of nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment