 
### EARTHCARE

Towards an environmental theology

Chris Park

**EARTHCARE** Towards an environmental theology

Chris Park

Smashwords Edition

Copyright 2012 Chris Park

This ebook is an updated version of the book _Caring for Creation_ which was first published in print format by Harper Collins in 1991. It is dedicated to my wife, best friend and travel companion Penny, who brought the sunshine back.

Thank you for downloading this free ebook. Although this is a free book, it remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. If you enjoyed this book, please encourage your friends to download their own copy at Smashwords.com. Thank you for your support.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

CHAPTER 1. ENVIRONMENT IN CRISIS

CHAPTER 2. ATTITUDES AND ETHICS

CHAPTER 3. FRAMING ENVIRONMENT: WORLD-VIEWS

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENT AND SPIRITUALITY

CHAPTER 5. CHRISTIANITY IN THE DOCK

CHAPTER 6. SAINTS AND SETTLERS

CHAPTER 7. TOWARDS A THEOLOGY OF NATURE

CHAPTER 8. A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

REFERENCES

CHAPTER 1

**ENVIRONMENT IN CRISIS**

Since the start of the new millennium barely a day passes without a story about the environment appearing as big news. Sometimes it takes the form of a good news story, such as the successful conservation of an endangered species, or the clean-up of an area of contaminated land. More often than not, however, the environment provides bad news stories – serious pollution incidents, loss of important habitats, decline in the number and spread of species, emergence of new forms of environmental risk.

We start by looking at some of the more pressing environmental problems, review the historic context, look at the claims of the optimists and pessimists, and consider what's new about the environmental problems that challenge us today.

Environmental problems

There is overwhelming evidence that we are destroying the very environment on which our health, livelihood and survival depend. The list of problems is long and getting longer.

Among the most widespread problems are air pollution, changing habitat and population pressure. Some simple illustrations will suffice here. Useful internet sources of up-to-date information on the state of the environment include the World Resources Institute (http://www.wri.org) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (http://www.unep.org).

Air pollution, mainly by invisible gases, is produced mainly from factories, houses, power stations and vehicle exhausts. This material can be blown by the wind over vast areas, and can damage human health as well as wildlife. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global warming caused by greenhouse gas pollution has caused average temperature around the world to rise by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) since 1880, with further rises ahead that are likely to cause sea-level rise and more intense storms. On a local scale, an estimated 625 million people worldwide live in areas (mainly industrial cities) where the air is unhealthy.

Another serious environmental problem today is the continued destruction of tropical rainforests and woodlands. These are being cleared at a rate of around 110,000 km2 a year: four-fifths of the forest area is cleared for farming and the rest is selectively logged. Although the tropical forests cover only about 6% of the world's land surface, they are an essential part of our life-support system. They help to regulate climate, protect soils from erosion, and provide habitats for millions of species of plants and animals (up to nine-tenths of all the species of wildlife on earth live in the tropical forests). Beyond the tropics, many species of plants and animals are under threat because of their natural habitats are being destroyed. Other wildlife is threatened by excessive hunting and trapping for trade, especially species which are rare and endangered, like rhinos and African elephants.

Population pressure is another critical part of the equation: there are simply too many people expecting too much of the earth's environment and resources, and the numbers continue to grow. World population doubled between 1950 and 1987, reaching 5,000 million. Rapid growth continues: the United Nations expect it to reach 7 billion by 2011, with nine-tenths of the growth concentrated in the developing world. It is not just the total number of people that matters, it is their distribution, especially in relation to access to resources. The 26 per cent of the world's population who live in the developed world consume 80 per cent of the commercially produced energy, up to 86 per cent of the metals and up to 34 per cent of the food. Little wonder serious inequalities exist in health, wealth and quality of life between developed and developing countries.

Historic context

Whilst scientists have written a great deal about the environmental crisis in recent years, there is nothing new about the idea that people are damaging their environment. There is abundant evidence from earlier periods of human history that people have exploited or mismanaged their environment. For example, forest clearance is a traditional form of land management which has been carried out throughout the settled world for at least the last 4,000 years. Forests have been felled in present-day Sahara and Arabia since 5,000 BC, in China since 2,000 BC and in the United States since about 1800 AD.

Human activities have caused the extinction of wildlife through the millennia. For example, many large American mammals (including mammoths and many species of horses) became extinct towards the close of the last Ice Age, possibly because early Americans used fire drives to encourage whole herds of big game over cliffs for hunting.

Air pollution is not new, either. Appalling conditions in 17th century London are described by John Evelyn in his 1661 book called _Fumifugium, or the Smoake of London Dissipated_ \- "... whilst these chimneys) are belching forth their sooty jaws, the city of London resembles the face rather of Mount Etna ... or the suburbs of hell, than an assembly of rational creatures, and the Imperial seat of our Incomparable Monarch."

In his 1974 book _Topophilia_ American geographer Yi-Fu Tuan argued that "people have always known food shortages and famines, but they usually confronted them as present realities in this or that place, not as a world-wide catastrophe yet to come. The global scale and the future tense are thus new."

Optimists and pessimists

The journalists' maxim that "bad news is good news" applies well to much writing about the environment, and there is no shortage of gloomy pessimists eager to explain just how nigh the end of the world now is!

Some of the self-styled prophets of ecological doom have relied on shaky quasi-scientific arguments, whilst others are simply plain old sentimentalists who prefer a rustic past to a high-tech present.

There have been plenty of scare stories before - the early 1970s in particular was an era of gloom and doom environmental writing. For example, in 1974 a group of scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wrote a book called _Limits to Growth_ , in which they predicted what might happen in the future if recent trends (in pollution, resource use, population increase and so on) were allowed to continue unchecked. They forecast a point within the 21st century when serious shortages of natural resources will lead to falling industrial growth, limited food supplies and a marked drop in the human population caused by pollution, famine, disease and stress.

Critics of this pessimism school, and there are plenty, point out that despite such bleak forecasts of impending doom we are still here! "Just how sound is the argument?" ask the optimists, who insist that the prophets of doom invariably expect the worst to happen. The optimists argue that the pessimists always seem to blow the issue out of all proportion and overstate the case, often using incomplete or inaccurate data.

This debate between positive-thinkers (the optimists) and negative-thinkers (the pessimists) is more than just academic, because recently the pessimists' case has been attracting most of the attention in the media. This is one reason for the rise of popular interest in environmental issues ... it reflects fear in the future survival of the earth and its life-support systems. But is this fear justified?

Many people are convinced that there is plenty of good news to indicate that things are improving, and they conclude that talk about an environmental _crisis_ is indefensible scare-mongering. Certainly there are encouraging signs. Many industries, for example, are investing heavily in efforts to develop and introduce new production technologies, choose alternative materials, and treat wastes so as to reduce if not eliminate harmful effects to people and environment.

Demands for the introduction and enforcement of tougher standards of pollution control continue to rise, and campaigning groups like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are raising awareness and mobilising citizen concern for the environment.

A wide range of economic and political measures are being introduced in different countries to encourage the use of environmentally-sound technologies and the adoption of environmentally-friendly lifestyles.

Since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit there has been widespread interest in sustainable development as a way of trying to reconcile the conflicting demands of economic development and environmental protection, and bridging the needs of the present and the future.

What's new?

Many people ask "Is the situation really as critical as some people are saying it is?" There are problems, of course, but is it really a _crisis_? The answer depends partly on what we mean by the term 'crisis'. Optimists say "There have been environmental scare stories before, and we are still here - so what is the problem?" But such an argument overlooks several important aspects of today's crisis which make it quite different from past situations.

Global scale

One difference is the global scale of damage. We now have the power to change the environment on a global scale, for the first time ever. Many of today's pressing problems are affecting the whole world: global warming is the most obvious example.

Many environmental problems, especially air and water pollution, are international because they cross national frontiers. For example, nuclear fallout from the reactor accident at Chernobyl in 1986 was spread across Europe within a week. Serious political as well as scientific problems are posed by such uncontrollable movements.

Pace of change

A second new cause for concern is the speed with which serious problems are building up. Rates of change are already high, but they are getting faster.

In a typical day, it is estimated that 30,000 hectares of tropical forest (an area roughly the size of the Isle of Wight) is destroyed or badly damaged; deserts advance over a similar area; around 200 million tonnes of valuable topsoil are washed or blown away; one more species becomes extinct; and 100,000 people, nearly half of them children, die from starvation.

Persistence

The long-lasting effects of many environmental problems aggravates the situation ever further, and it means that we are passing on to future generations problems which we have created but for which we have no solutions. Some of our waste products, such as toxic chemicals and radioactive wastes from nuclear power stations, will still be around in thousands of years time.

Today's land-use changes, such as forest felling and the building of cities, might trigger climatic changes which affect the next century or even further ahead. Activities which cause the extinction of wildlife species have a cost which stretches to eternity, because extinction is forever.

Thresholds

Many scientists are worried that we are now stretching ecological systems to their breaking point (critical thresholds beyond which irreversible changes can occur). This makes the present situation more serious and more critical than ever before, and it means that the options available to generations which follow us (including our own children) will depend largely on what actions we take.

The planet has a finite ability to absorb our wastes and renew its resources, and to knowingly approach those natural limits is to deliberately play Russian Roulette with our environmental life-support system.

Uncertainty

Another cause for concern is growing awareness that we simply don't know how many of our actions are affecting the environment and through that affecting people's health. There are many uncertainties in linking observed effects with possible or suspected causes. Examples include the widespread controversy and anxiety surrounding the suspected links between leukaemia and radiation pollution, and the uncertainties over diseases like bird flu or 'mad cow disease' can be transmitted to people.

New risks are being created every day, through the development of new technologies (such as genetic engineering) or the careless use of existing ones (such as the 1984 explosion at the Bhopal pesticide factory or the 2010 submarine oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico).

-oOo-

Return to Table of Contents

CHAPTER 2

**ATTITUDES AND ETHICS**

Many people argue that the environmental debate is not just about practical issues - it runs much deeper than that and centres on our attitude and values. Why do we view things the way we do? Why do we behave as we do?

The way we see the world shapes the way we react to it. We tend to look upon the earth as a free commodity, a limitless reservoir of resources, and a bottomless rubbish dump. Yet, at the same time, we expect it to meet all our needs with minimal cost - we expect it to be life-supporting, useful and beautiful ... all at the same time. Perhaps this is a naively optimistic hope.

Here we explore four interrelated themes. The first is a series of myths and misconceptions which underlie the way we see the world around us. Then we ask "Why do we care?" This raises the whole issue of ethics and spirituality.

Myths and misconceptions

A number of myths underlie the way we view and treat the world around us, including the myth of super-abundance, and the myth of human conquest of nature.

The myth of super-abundance is based on the idea that nature is a rich and limitless storehouse of natural resources (such as energy, raw materials and wildlife) which we can use as, how, where and when we decide ... and which will never run out. As a result we often have very unrealistic expectations about issues like the productivity of farmland and forests, the sustainability of ocean fish stocks, the availability of new land for development.

Yet the notion is deceptive, because it encourages ruthless exploitation rather than careful conservation. It is also incompatible with what we understand about limits within nature and with the given fact that the earth is finite.

This false vision of a limitless nature arises from human greed - we want to have (or convince ourselves that we need) more, bigger and better of everything. This attitude of accumulating an ever-growing and ever-changing amount of disposable material goods is very much a feature of contemporary life.

Modern culture glorifies things, especially modern and new things - like fast food, fast cars and high-tech equipment. The media promotes the image of modern, new things as good and right, thereby encouraging us to buy more, bigger, better and more modern versions of the things we already have! It quickly becomes a vicious circle, which is difficult to break unless we realize what's going on and make a conscious effort to do something about it.

Closely coupled with our consumer habits is our modern obsession with material wealth and the status, prestige and power which (we believe) it endows us with. We tend to measure a person's status in terms of things like wealth, power, prestige or intellectual productivity. The mere possession of wealth is not enough, it must be displayed - hence it is sometimes referred to as 'conspicuous consumption' or 'galloping consumerism'.

An equally damaging myth is the assumption that people have some fundamental right to conquer and exploit nature. We assume that this conquest can be carried out without harming ourselves or the basic environmental systems on which our very survival depends. It is nothing short of arrogance to think the earth is ours to do with exactly as we please.

Our capacity to damage nature is closely linked with new developments in science and technology, and a further widely-held myth is the so-called technological imperative, which argues that if we have the technology, we should use it. Such a view has encouraged the uncontrolled use of modern technology, with few safeguards adopted or little thought given to limiting its use to where it is genuinely needed.

Modern technology is a double-edged sword. We have modern medicines which work miracles, and we marvel at the sight of men walking on the surface of the moon. But technology has also given us toxic wastes which are almost impossible to dispose of safely, and nuclear weapons which have posed a threat to the very survival of humankind. What's more, research and development in technology has required the investment of vast sums of money and other resources which might otherwise have been used for more humanitarian purposes.

Why do we care?

Most people today do care about the environment, even if that care is largely self-centred. Many of us probably can't work out our motives very clearly; indeed, we may never have sat down to think about what drives us. It seems that people are usually motivated in one of two ways - self-interest and altruism.

Self-interest

People with the underlying motive of self-interest tend to view everything as a means to an end, and this end is usually their own or their group's well-being. They see nature as a commodity, and an inexhaustible one at that, which is there to be used and exchanged for their own benefit. This benefit might be financial (they might, for example, sell exotic animal skins), or it might be material (they might use natural plants as herbal medicines, or catch wild fish or animals to eat).

This self-centred utilitarian view promotes the conservation of nature simply because we would be the losers if we didn't. It sees no intrinsic value in nature, or indeed in anything other than humans. Everything else is valued for what it can give to us or do for us.

A much less clinical motivation is enlightened self-interest. People who are motivated in this way go further than just seeing nature as there to be used; they have some appreciation of the many different ways in which nature can benefit us. An ability to see aesthetic values in nature releases us to be aware of the inherent beauty, symbolism and inspiration within the natural world, and to be conscious of values beyond sheer utility.

A person who builds a home overlooking unspoiled natural countryside, for example, can enjoy tranquility and beauty. Similarly, many people would be annoyed at the thought of destroying or altering places like Antarctica or the Grand Canyon, content with the prospect that they could visit them and enjoy them ... even if they never do visit them. But the underlying motives are still self-centred human ones.

According to this way of viewing and valuing things, nature has no intrinsic value; it only has value because there are people around to appreciate it. While we do lose something when we spoil nature, what we lose is aesthetic - it is our loss, not nature's.

The utilitarian arguments are both practical and economic. For example, we rely on wild species to provide gene stocks from which to develop new products, such as the small rosy periwinkle in Madagascar. This plant provides a drug for fighting leukaemia, which saves many children's lives and earns around US$100 million a year for the pharmaceutical industry.

There are also important ecological reasons for protecting nature, because everything - including all wildlife as well as soils, natural environmental cycles of water, gases and minerals, ocean currents and wind systems - is linked together by the 'web of life'. This fundamental inter-relatedness of all parts of the environment (including people) also means that problems which affect one part of the environment (such as air pollution which contaminates grassland) can quickly spread. They spread along food chains (to humans, perhaps by eating meat from sheep or cows which have eaten the grass) and through natural environmental cycles (to other places and to other parts of the same environment). For example, burning coal leads to pollution which changes climate and might affect the whole earth. So we really do live in one world.

Within the self-interest motivation there is also a moral line of argument, which is that we have a duty to protect nature because we also claim a right to enjoy it. Such a view is embodied in a set of principles for proper use of the environment which were agreed at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972 - "Man [sic] has a fundamental right to liberty, equality and satisfactory living conditions in an environment whose quality permits him to live in dignity and well-being. He has the solemn duty to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations."

There are two other people-centred motives for environmental concern. One is the argument that we have a moral obligation to future generations and a duty to respect their rights (in this case by leaving an environment for them). "We do not pass this world on to them, we borrow it from them", it is argued. We have an abiding responsibility to look after this planet, because our descendents have an incontestable right to inherit an environmental estate which is as good as the one we inherited ... if not better. We are in charge of the earth's future and we must face up to that responsibility.

The second such motive is our moral obligation to the poor, the marginalised, the voiceless and the powerless - most of whom are concentrated in developing countries. A typical US child has an impact on the environment equivalent to about 50 Indian children; at least 730 million people face food shortages, and 1.3 billion face serious shortage of safe drinking water. What prospect for their future if we in the developed countries continue to over-indulge ourselves, over-exploit nature and over-load the environment with our over-produced wastes? With a wealthy western lifestyle comes high expectations, self-centred attitudes and damaging patterns of behaviour.

Both variants of the self-interest motive are fundamentally people-centred, or anthropocentric. Environmentalists argue that this pre-occupation with ourselves, and the total disregard for intrinsic values in nature which it breeds, is the root cause of the environmental crisis. They conclude that it is our attitudes which are at fault ... expecting everything to be created entirely for our benefit. This, they insist, drives our aggressive exploitation of the environment and focuses our attention on immediate satisfaction at the expense of wider or longer-term goals. Nothing short of a wholesale reformation of human values is required, and this requires us to wake up to wider issues of spirituality.

Altruism

An altruistic concern about nature is based on the premise that nature has intrinsic value. In other words, things in the natural world - the flowers and trees, the birds in the sky, water in rivers and the sea, even the clouds and rocks and mountains - have value in themselves, quite independent from any notion that they might be useful to humankind.

The altruistic motive for concern about the environmental crisis is based on what that crisis is doing to the earth and to all creatures great and small on it, rather than on how people are affected by the crisis. Philosophers have long debated the question of whether non-human things (living and non-living) have rights, so little wonder it is a contentious ingredient in the environmental debate.

Altruism raises a number of difficult ethical dilemmas and questions concerning our use of the environment - such as "Do we have a right to destroy other forms of life?" and "What is our obligation to protect the world?"

One view is that our responsibilities range over a spectrum of what we might term 'ethical levels' - starting with ourselves (where what we do is guided only by what benefit we get out of it), our family and friends, the nation, and then outwards to all living people and future generations, and then plants and animals and ultimately the inorganic world - mountains, rivers and the oceans. Most people recognise some responsibilities at the lower levels (possibly to the nation or future generations), but have little appreciation of wider duties to the world around them.

But we do have duties and responsibilities concerning the environment, and they extend way beyond what is directly beneficial to people. This is the very substance of ethics; ethics do not describe how people actually behave, but how they ought to behave.

Ethics and spirituality

A central challenge facing the environmental movement is to work out an appropriate environmental ethic. The usual source of ethics is religion or philosophy - where ideas of good and bad, or right and wrong, are established as standards of behaviour. Interestingly, the focus of perhaps the most intense search for an environmental ethic today is religious beliefs ... even amongst environmentalists who often have little time for established religion in general, and for Christianity in particular.

The initiatives and efforts of theologians, philosophers and green political thinkers are starting to converge on the search for a viable environmental ethic. Amongst the most promising areas of shared interest within this search are ideas of stewardship, based on the belief that we do not really possess the earth but have responsibilities to use it carefully and then pass it on in good condition to future generations ... to leave the earth as we would wish to find it.

There are two contrasting views on why we have the environmental crisis, each attributing it to radically different forces and each in turn looking for different solutions.

The secular view, much the more common, is that the environmental crisis is a material problem which requires a material solution. The material problem includes pollution, creation of wastes, over-use of resources and reliance on market forces. The only viable solutions according to this view involve changes in science, technology, economics and politics (this is the mechanistic world-view).

The broader religious view is that the environmental crisis is a spiritual problem which requires a spiritual solution. From this perspective, human separation from God, through following our own interests rather than recognising our responsibilities, have given rise to the crisis and the attitudes and values which underlie it. Consequently the only solution is reconciliation with God; the solution is change in people.

Self-centredness and stewardship

The root problem, which has a spiritual basis but very practical consequences, is the common view that human beings are the most important things on earth. This view is described as anthropocentrism. It is a relatively recent attitude but it is largely taken for granted in the rich and materialistic west.

This view, taken to extreme, would argue that we own the earth, we are fully in charge of it, and we can run it just as we please. Nature is there just to serve us and to please us. It is a short step from this sort of self-centred attitude to concluding that we can use other people and resources just as we please. Hence domination, exploitation and control are justified as inevitable, as we pursue wealth and progress as individuals and collectively in society.

Such thinking raises several fundamental questions. Why was the earth created? Who owns it? Many environmentalists argue that the earth exists for its own purposes, that nature is in control - hence the heavy emphasis on ecological principles of interdependence, cycles and rhythms of life. In its greenest form this gets translated into reverence for Mother Earth, and sometimes expresses itself in paganism, animism and nature worship.

Respect for people and planet, rather than exploitation, is another key feature of environmental belief. Many environmentalists, concerned about the need to respect and value nature and resources in their own right, are calling for new relationships with the earth based on stewardship and trusteeship ... rather than domination, tyrannical control and oppression, such as occurs when fundamental human rights are ignored.

Stewardship involves looking after something such as land or natural resources and taking care of it, without necessarily owning it. A trustee looks after something on behalf of its owner. The relationship is based on trust - the owner trusts his trustee to look after his possession, use it sensibly and in a sustainable manner, and willing to give it back when the time is right. The concept of stewardship provides a useful and traditional framework for a Christian approach to environmental issues, as we explore later in this book.

Looking at the world like this raises important questions of principle. For example, who decides how to share out available resources? Should the person who found them have the unalienable right to appropriate them? Who should the major trustees be? How should they act?

There is also the wider question of responsibility. In many aspects of life - such as what we buy and how we travel - we can quite easily see where we personally are responsible. The real difficulties arise where we find it difficult if not impossible to say who is responsible.

Take for example global warming. Factories, power stations, houses and vehicles that burn fossil fuels pour out greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; the wind blows the pollutants, they interact with other chemicals and sunlight in the atmosphere; global warming follows. Who is responsible? We are all involved in one way or another, and in many environmental problems it is just about impossible to decide just who the guilty party is. We are all guilty, because our consumer lifestyles conspire to aggravate the situation, and promote ever-rising expectations.

So, we have responsibilities towards other people and towards the earth, and our attitudes, values and lifestyles should reflect those responsibilities in fair and sustainable ways. Again, the issue centres on how we see ourselves in the global or even universal order of things. Are we all-important, or just a part? Are our rights more important than those of other people? Is our comfort and wealth more important than the survival of a rare species?

-oOo-

Return to Table of Contents

**CHAPTER 3**

FRAMING ENVIRONMENT: WORLD-VIEWS

A brief history of changing attitudes towards nature helps us to understand how we have arrived at the present environmental predicament, and it offers clues to what we might do about it. It provides us with a mental map of where different ideas come from and how they fit together.

The way we see the world - our so-called world-view - turns out to be very time-specific. If we had lived in medieval times we would have had very different attitudes to those we have today, for example. Similarly, if we lived today in a different culture to our own, we would probably have very different attitudes and values.

Radical changes in world-view have at times inspired and at other times been promoted by broader cultural, socio-economic, scientific and technological changes. The two often seem to be so closely tied together that it is difficult to identify which caused which.

To make some sense of the complex history of changing attitudes towards nature, it is helpful to consider three broad types of world-view cosmological, mechanistic and ecological ones.

Cosmological world-views

Cosmology is the philosophical study of the origin and nature of the universe, and it has traditionally shaped people's attitudes towards the world and towards nature.

Cosmological world-views focus on the importance of spiritual issues and the role played by God or gods in creating and sustaining the universe. Four broad groups of world-view reflect an interest in cosmology - primitive mysticism, Judaism, classical antiquity and Medieval Christianity.

Primitive mysticism

In this view of the world, which is pre-Christian in origin but survives in different forms in many traditional cultures, people sees themselves as very much at the mercy of the elements. The view dates back, in its original form, to a time perhaps up to a million years ago, before the development of stone tools and the use of fire allowed people to gain some mastery over some parts of nature and thus begin to separate from it.

To early people the environment was no friend; it was hostile and had to be survived rather than enjoyed. Day-to-day survival was a relentless struggle against the cycles and extremes of natural elements like the weather, along with the unpredictability of threats and attacks from other animals and other people.

This was no cosy existence. It was people against the elements, people against nature, and people against people. Such people must have been frightened by the harshness of raw nature, yet at the same time struck by the mystery of it all.

Ancient farmers who needed to combat the elements (the sun, wind, rain and fire) often had little option but to appeal to the spirits and ask them to co-operate. Thus, for example, early pagan animists made quite sure that they had placated the nature gods before they cut down even one single tree. The spirit of climate or some other spirit would have to be appealed to, incessantly, in people's attempt to make the best of the difficult task of surviving if not prospering in a difficult world which seemed to offer more constraints than opportunities for people to explore.

Nature mysticism has survived down the ages in various forms, and it appears today in animism and pantheism (nature worship), as well as in some primitive religions. Shades of it also surface in the thoughts and works of the nineteenth century Romantic writers.

Judaism

Ancient people's views of the universe were heavily influenced by natural rhythms and repeated cycles - day and night, the rise and fall of the tides, the rhythm of the seasons. Theirs was a harmonic world. Little wonder, therefore, that their notion of time was cyclical. For them time has no beginning and no end, it just keeps going.

Our dominant world-view in the West today is very different, because we have an implicit faith in perpetual progress. We see time as directional; it is one way and irreversible, not cyclical. This view is deeply rooted in Judaism and the Old Testament, where the notions of initial creation followed by progression towards an ultimate end - the Alpha (beginning) and the Omega (end) - are fundamental and recurrent.

The Old Testament view of people's relationship with nature is one of responsibility and authority, which arises directly from the Biblical story of creation as told in Genesis. God created the whole universe, including the earth and everything on it. He created them from nothing. He also created people, and gave them authority within the rest of creation to use the earth and its resources. Indeed, he went further than granting them permission - he instructed them to do so (Genesis 1:28).

But the instruction did not extend to doing anything that we want to with creation. It remains God's creation, and we remain answerable to him for our use of it. It follows logically from this that God naturally retains the right to remove that authority from us (either temporarily or permanently) if we use it unwisely, act irresponsibly, or exploit the rest of creation though greed or selfishness.

Such views on authority and responsibility provide the framework for much Old Testament teaching, including views on land - which cannot be owned outright; we are to be God's stewards or caretakers, not freehold owners. It is a conditional granting of authority, and history is full of examples of blatant abuse and self-centred exploitation. This says more about human nature than about Old Testament teaching on the use of creation.

Various writers have pointed out that there is no conception of nature beyond humankind in the Old Testament, which repeatedly stresses that all creatures have the same value. For example, various Psalms describe the creation by God of mountains, waves and rocks, which in turn worship him and display his glory and grace much like people do.

The main distinction in the Old Testament is between the creator (God) and his creation (the universe, including people and nature). The emphasis is on God. Creation is portrayed as having no meaning in itself, however awe-inspiring it might be. A recurring theme in the Old Testament is not worship of nature but of the creator and controller of it (eg Psalm 93).

According to the Jewish world-view, therefore, nature is valued as a reflection of God's creative power and his continued and sustaining interest in his creation. Unlike the Primitive Mysticism view, nature is not to be worshipped or feared. It is there to be used, as a gift from God. But it cannot be squandered or plundered; it must be used carefully and thoughtfully, and in a way that honours its creator.

Classical antiquity

The ancient Greeks and Romans saw the natural world very differently from the early Jews. To them the world was a living organism. It was animate, much like the human body, and as such it had thoughts and feelings. This classical world-view was anthropomorphic (attributing human form and behaviour to the whole natural world). People and nature were seen as close relatives, not separate entities.

Such a view sharply influenced their attitudes and behaviour. The ancient Greeks developed very sophisticated gadgets, but they used them almost entirely for human entertainment rather than for industrial production. So it might seem odd that they did not develop technology when they were obviously capable of doing so. But the Greeks did not separate nature from the rest of the universe, nor did they consider nature as an object independent from us and ready for exploration. To control and conquer nature would have been totally alien to their world-view.

The ancient Greek view of the world as a living organism was deeply rooted in their beliefs about how the world was created. As they saw it God did not actually create matter he simply ordered it, fashioning some pre-existing disordered world into an ideal pattern, the world we see today.

This divine pattern is based on a single organic whole, with mind and reason. Thus the earth is animate and nature has spirits. Every part of the universe - including nature (which consists of air, water, fire and earth), people and spirits - is a component of this perfect creature. A disturbance in one part of the unified whole (such as human disturbance of nature) could trigger a reaction elsewhere in the universal organism (such as disease in humans).

The world-view of classical antiquity saw nature as alive, highly ordered and equal in status and value to humankind. It also centred on spirits within nature, and on the need to worship and care for the natural world. It has a lasting legacy in much of today's environmental thinking, especially in the Gaia hypothesis, which views the earth as a living organism.

Medieval Christian

The Middle Ages span the period between the end of classical antiquity (around 476 AD) and start of the Italian Renaissance (around 1453). In Europe this period saw the flowering of Christianity, and the dominant world-view emerged from the attempt to grasp God's design or order based on a combination of knowledge and revelation.

Attitudes to nature were heavily influenced by the biblical view of creation and by the Roman concept of nature as the force which directs the world (effectively, God's deputy). There was a clear shift in emphasis from the older Jewish distinction between creator and creation, to a newer Christian distinction between God and nature.

A prominent development, by the early thirteenth century, was the emergence of natural theology, which was attempting to understand God's mind by discovering how his creation operates. Historian of Science Lynn White points out that in this medieval science "the task and reward of the scientist were to think God's thoughts after Him".

But underlying this scientific and intellectual endeavour was the firm belief that people are superior to nature. Such a belief was derived from a particular interpretation of passages in Genesis which deal with people's "dominion over the fish of the sea" and other creatures (Genesis 1:26-28). Here, according to some historians and environmentalists, lies the root cause of our present environmental crisis.

Some have argued that medieval people were much more concerned about conquering themselves than they were about conquering nature. They saw the material world simply as a stepping stone to eternity in heaven, but one full of temptations to which he would constantly fall prey. Nature served no purpose in the overall scheme of human salvation, and there was no point even trying to conquer it. It was, if anything, a hindrance to be tolerated. The common view was that nature has no reason to exist other than to serve people.

There was not one uniform world-view across the whole of Medieval Europe, of course. St Francis's life of humility and simplicity, and his recognition of all of nature as a democracy which made all of creation equally valuable and equally striking as a witness to the beauty and grace of God, provides a radically different strand of early Medieval Christian thinking.

Mechanistic world-views

The cosmological world-views reflect a belief that nature is controlled by something which is bigger than and extends beyond the limits of the universe - God or the gods.

The mechanistic world-views have no need for such supernatural control; indeed, they deliberately exclude it. They view the natural world like a machine.

Perhaps the most radical shift in attitudes towards nature, certainly in Western society, came during the Renaissance and the Reformation. This was a time of unprecedented cultural, social, economic and intellectual change. Nature, previously seen as a backdrop to the drama of human existence, was now viewed as a machine composed of physical parts.

To understand how the parts worked was to understand how the world worked. If that could be done through careful scientific study, it was believed, God would effectively be displaced from his sovereign place as creator and sustainer of the universe.

This period was one of turmoil within the church, and attacks from without. Never before, or since, have so many tides of new ideas ebbed and flowed with such cumulative results. Led by men of such calibre as Luther and Calvin, Bacon, Galileo and Newton, this was none other than a total revolution in western thinking which brought an attitude of domination over nature and the natural world. What was previously seen as something mystical, alive and worthy of respect and care was now viewed as something to be used, changed and exploited.

Reformation

The Reformation began in 16th century Europe. It grew from the attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church into a wider religious and political movement which led, among other things, to the establishment of the Protestant Churches. The main leader of the Reformation was German theologian Martin Luther (1483-1546), who preached the doctrine of justification by faith not by works.

But in the context of attitudes towards nature, the leading figure was French theologian John Calvin (1509-1564). He and his followers developed a new theological system which had a fundamental and enduring influence on the development of Protestant doctrine. Calvinism is based on Luther's doctrine of justification by faith, but it goes much further in its doctrine of predestination - the belief that the final salvation of some of humankind (the chosen ones, or 'elect') was ordained at the beginning of time by God, and could be proven but not altered by the actions of an individual.

Some have argued that this fuelled a drive towards modern capitalism and materialism which Calvinists justified by an ethic of God's calling - Calvin emphasised that individual material success is a sign of election, or God's ultimate approval.

Renaissance

The sweeping intellectual changes of this era started nearly two hundred years earlier in Renaissance Europe, beginning in Italy in the 14th century. New ways of looking at, finding out about, and thinking about the world emerged with the spread of geographical discovery and the emergence of modern science.

Veils of mystery surrounding human values, beliefs and potential were lifted with the emergence of modern philosophy. Classical scholarship was re-examined and its virtues re-evaluated. Secular humanity was emerging from the medieval era of religion and contemplation.

English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was the founding father of modern science. He rejected the science of the day which relied heavily on theory, allowed for the supernatural, had to fit in with religious dogma and didn't actually test the real world as it really is. In its place, he introduced logic and the search for answers based on experience or experiment. Bacon was interested in genuine knowledge, based on logical interpretations of undistorted evidence with a clear, rational and open mind.

Bacon's legacy to modern science includes the introduction of inductive reasoning (explaining events from real world evidence) and empirical testing (devising experiments to check and re-check conclusions). His objective study of the world opened up the opportunity for modern technology to develop, because it was rooted in the desire to understand the world as it really is, without the constraints of fanciful theories or religious conviction.

Views of nature could now be liberated, and this triggered greater study, exploration and description of the wealth and diversity of the natural world. The overriding sense of mystery at the wonders of God's creation was starting to evaporate as rational scientific understanding started to increase.

This trend towards scientific rationality was accelerated after Italian mathematician, astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) introduced the idea of quantifying nature, rather than simply looking at it or describing it.

Galileo looked upon the universe as a book, a great book of nature in which is written all we need to know to understand the world. The challenge, as he saw it, was to decipher the language used in the book of nature. Galileo wrote about "this grand book, the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the letters in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics ... without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it". So he developed a mathematical way of looking at the world, trying to uncover its secrets through experimental and empirical testing, measuring and expressing numerically what he saw and found.

Galileo's approach was adopted and advanced by Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727), the English mathematician, physicist, astronomer and philosopher. Newton favoured empirical testing and quantitative studies, much like Galileo. Amongst other things, he formulated three laws of motion (or mechanics), a law of gravitation and a theory of light. He also developed calculus.

To Newton the universe was like a huge working clock, which operated according to mechanical laws which could be discovered and described. The only acceptable forms of explanation, therefore, were mechanistic (or deterministic) ones. His challenge was to use mathematical theorems to try to discover how the world machine worked.

It follows, from Newton's logic, that what cannot be quantified (such as feelings, beauty or spiritual matters) is irrelevant to understanding the grand design of the universe. Such views, and the reasoning behind them, were summarised in his _Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy_ (1687), although it took nearly a century for the underlying mechanistic view of the world to be widely accepted.

Whilst he was more a mechanic than a philosopher, Newton was not an atheist. To him God was still creator and governor of all things. He noted, for example, that "the motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural course alone, but were impressed by an intelligent Agent".

Dualism

Newton was not alone, and the emerging Renaissance mechanistic world-view still allowed for creation by God. The major shift in emphasis was away from trying to understand the theological implications of the very act of creation itself, towards trying to understand the laws of nature imposed on the world by God. But the separation of God from nature implied that God was no longer in direct control. It also implied that many qualities of nature (such as beauty) only have value because we regard them as valuable (that is, they have no inherent value).

Thus emerged a dualism between people and nature, reflecting the sort of dualism which French philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) identified between body and soul in people, and English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) identified between the individual and society. It was people against nature, not people in or with nature.

Nature came to be seen as a commodity to be exploited and exchanged, and this both encouraged and was encouraged by the emerging capitalist economy in Europe. From being an object of aesthetic contemplation, nature was increasingly seen as an object of exploration, and ultimately as an object of exploitation. The Renaissance context for nature and the material world was unambiguous; it was there for people to subdue, control and exploit as if he owned it. Indeed, it was humankind's destiny to do so, and was done with God's blessing.

There were other forces at work in seventeenth century Europe which encouraged this utilitarian view of nature. Early forms of democratic government were starting to emerge. Science was developing fast, and starting to ask new questions and seek answers in new directions. Technology was evolving and new forms of production were emerging. Industrialisation and progress were accepted as the norm.

Humanism - belief in human ingenuity and effort rather than religion - was also on the increase, and there was an emerging emphasis on the autonomy of the individual and on people struggling to survive and improve their lot in a harsh and oppressive world.

One of the most significant forces during this period was the emergence of capitalism (the economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and the pursuit of profit under competitive conditions). Machines were starting to replace land as the primary resources for production, and human labour came to be viewed as a commodity which could be traded and exchanged. Mobile, enterprising middle-class merchants were becoming more numerous throughout Europe.

Private ownership was becoming more common, bringing added security as well as tangible evidence of success. Mechanistic attitudes and capitalism values and practices were spread around the world as European traders and settlers (including Puritans, pioneers and explorers) began to colonise new areas.

We come full-circle, back to Reformation thinking, because a prime factor in the development of capitalism was Calvin's views on election (to be received into heaven after life on earth). Many Calvinists assumed that earthly success must be a blessing from God and a signal of God's approval and calling. Thus prosperity and material wealth were seen as evidence of their election and salvation.

As a result Calvinists worked hard to prove to themselves and others that they were members of the elect. Personal qualities of hard-work, self-discipline, frugality, honesty and sobriety were seen as virtues. The market exchange system, control of labour, generation of profit - hallmarks of capitalism - were encouraged. Although Protestantism did not create capitalism, Calvinism was very supportive of it.

The Reformation and the Renaissance heralded the arrival of a new set of values, aspirations and attitudes. The Reformers, concerned with the souls of men, were disinterested in the idea of intrinsic values in nature. Renaissance thinking centred on people and their human potential; values were visibly anthropocentric (people-centred).

The emerging new science saw nature as a vast machine, from which higher values (ultimate purpose and meaning) were excluded as irrelevant. If God played any part in the drama of human existence (and many believed he did not), it was mainly to approve of the triumph of civilisation over nature like some benevolent but detached overseer.

Industrial Revolution

Many aspects of the mechanistic world-view were to be reinforced in the Industrial Revolution in Europe. The development and diffusion of new forms of productive technology from the eighteenth century onwards encouraged and enabled more and more exploitation of nature. Natural resources like minerals, soils, water, forests, grassland and wildlife were appropriated, used, exchanged, damaged and depleted in ways and at speeds which would previously have been unthinkable.

Nature was seen as there to be dominated, exploited and conquered, all in the name of progress. Private ownership spread, along with market exchange systems and the rise of labour as a factor in production. Factories were built all over the place, in town and country, using local resources (such as timber for fuel) and producing serious pollution of land, air and water. This was the era of the "dark, satanic mills"; industrial landscapes were stark, grimy and hazardous.

Much of the blame for the environmental damage and environmentally-damaging attitudes at that time (certainly in Britain) can be attributed to the attitudes of the new breed of industrialists. Before them, the land-owning aristocracy had seen themselves as the sole and rightful owners of their land. But they had also felt a keen sense of responsibility to God, their heirs and their employees. It was tradition for the family's land to be passed on down to children and their children, so land was simply held in trust and looked after by each successive generation.

But the new rising bourgeoisie - the nouveaux riches - had not inherited wealth from their forefathers but won it by their own hard-work, enterprise and success. To them land and wealth were not gifts but prizes. As tangible signs of achievement and new-found status, their land and wealth were to be enjoyed and displayed rather than held in trust for future generations.

Material goods were prized as symbols of success, so that possessiveness became a self-fulfilling prophecy. In this we might see an early manifestation of the conspicuous consumption which seems endemic in modern society. It is no accident that many of the new industrial entrepreneurs came from dissenting sects, like the Quakers, and had strong Calvinistic beliefs and values.

The Industrial Revolution is often portrayed as people using technology to gain control of the natural world. Here were people using their ingenuity to tame nature and put it to good use. There were thought to be few limits to what nature could provide, if only we could develop the right sorts of technology to exploit it.

This gave rise to the illusion of nature as a limitless storehouse, and related illusion of people's limitless creativity and potential. With it came a 'value-vacuum' in which religion was marginalised as belief in progress and technology drove society onwards.

The 'value-vacuum' deepened and spread during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with the rise of secularism (the rejection of religion). The trend was continued in the nineteenth century as positivism (the view that knowledge can only come from perception) and materialism (interest in possessions rather than spiritual or ethical values) were embraced almost universally, along with scientific rationality and an abiding faith in technological efficiency.

Even greater change was promoted by the development of the doctrine of utilitarianism by British philosophers Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832, founder) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873, developer). Utilitarianism - belief in "the greatest good for the greatest number" - quickly became the basis for ethics and behaviour. A further catalyst was the debate about the class struggle and the formation of the basis of modern communism by Karl Marx (1818-1883), Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924).

This was the age of industrialisation, and it is no accident that it was also the first age of massive and widespread environmental damage and destruction. The die was cast for further increases in resource-use, pollution and desecration of the environment in the twentieth century.

By now the trends were almost unstoppable. The rise during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries of the secular, rational, science-based world view had created the basis for today's utilitarian, technological, consumptive society whose single-minded pursuit of material progress would in turn create today's environmental crisis.

Scientism and technocracy

Many of the values and attitudes which first emerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have survived through to today. Our modern mechanistic world-view has two hallmarks - an almost unquestioned belief in science (scientism), and a pervasive dependence on technology and efficiency (technocracy).

Modern science has created many of the products which today we take for granted but which have radically altered the quality of human life. Obvious examples include the non-stick pan (indeed almost all of our cooking appliances, including microwaves, freezers and food-processors), the motor car (again, extending to all forms of modern transport), the computer (and all forms of technology for storing, handling and communicating information), and modern medicines and medical equipment.

Science does not come free, and neither does it come without limitations and problems. There is no shortage of critics of modern science. Many argue that environmental problems arise largely because of the way that science is used in modern society. The problem is not science _per se_ , it is what we do with it.

American political scientist Theodore Roszak wrote a book in 1972 called _Where the Wasteland Ends_ in which he criticises three particular short-comings of modern science. The first is reductionism - the view of the world as a machine or a collection of particles in motion, which concentrates on properties like size and speed which can be measured but dismisses properties like beauty and feelings which cannot.

The second criticism relates to objective consciousness. Roszak argues that objectivity (detachment of the observer from what is observed) led to an alienation of people from nature, and the view that nature is an object to be conquered and used. This arrogance towards nature encourages exploitation rather than harmony.

Roszak also criticises the loss of imagination which science has brought. Science is a routine mechanical process with little place for creative imagination; scientists are interested in the repeatable and general, not the unique. This has encouraged a reduction in the pace and variety of poetic and artistic development, and a more general loss of the sense of awe, wonder and mystery with which people often view the world around them.

Faith in science as a form of knowledge, and one way of understanding the world has removed the shackles of a world-view dependent entirely on cosmology. Critics of science argue that the real problem lies with scientism - the view that science is the only form of valid knowledge.

Scientism condemns as meaningless all products of the human spirit. It argues that all statements or phenomena which cannot be verified or falsified by empirical testing in the real world have no real meaning. This leaves God out of the picture altogether.

Science and technology go hand-in-hand, and technology brings its own problems. An obvious one is the damage which technology can cause, through environmental degradation or war. Technology concentrates power in the hands of a small group of people - power over nature, and power over other people.

Modern society relies on experts who can understand the complexities of technical questions. As a result, technocrats - technical specialists and highly trained elites - make many of society's most important decisions, such as whether to embark on a national programme of building nuclear power stations.

Technology also helps to dehumanise people. In modern Western society, where mass production and mass media, uniformity and standardization are the norm, people are in many ways just cogs in a well-oiled and highly organised machine. They feel and indeed largely are subservient to the machines. As such they are largely powerless to change anything within the vast impersonal bureaucracy of which he is but a small part.

We seem to have an almost unquestioned belief in people's technological omnipotence, believing that we will be able to do anything we like so long as we invest enough in appropriate research and development. Equally, we seem to be imprisoned by the so-called technological imperative, believing that if we have developed a particular type of technology, we must use it ... even if we know it to be a mixed blessing (think of nuclear energy, or nuclear weapons, for example).

So the scientism and technocracy which underlie modern Western societies are powerful influences on attitudes and values. Both are firmly rooted in the mechanistic world-view, and both assume that nature is there to be used and controlled. For many people the ultimate goal of life is to accumulate goods and wealth, success is measured in materialistic terms, individualism (and thus pleasure-seeking and personal fulfilment) is of the essence, and humanism has replaced faith and cosmology.

Ecological world-views

Ecological world-views emphasise the importance of natural environmental systems, ecosystem unity and coherence, and people as part of nature. They represent radical alternatives to the cosmological and mechanistic world-views. Here we find the basis for today's widespread interest in the environment.

Romanticism

The origins of today's ecology movement lie deep in history, but its immediate roots lie in the Romantic Movement of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The Romantic Movement in art, music and literature grew out of opposition to the classical style which had been so popular in eighteenth century Europe and had been heavily influenced by the formalism in art and culture typical of ancient Greece and Rome.

The main emphasis within Romanticism was on feeling rather than form, on the sublime and exotic rather than the everyday, and on free expression of passion and individuality rather than oppressed conformity. Romantics were soulful idealists, unashamed sentimentalists, interested in adventure and mystery.

Nature had special meaning for the Romantics as a source of mystery and imagination. Far from dominating nature - as the mechanistic world-views would have it - people were dominated by nature. The seasons, the elements, wilderness, landscapes and wildlife were important triggers of human emotions and symbols of some grand unity within the universe of which people are but a minute part.

The revolt against modern science and technology was led by French philosopher and writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), who believed that people are naturally good but they are usually adversely influenced by society. The real problem, he concluded, is that society deprives the individual of his freedom and humanity by imposing artificial needs on him - the need to conform, to work, to possess things, to have (and demonstrate) status and power, to progress, and so on.

Rousseau's solution was to advocate that we should try to regain our lost humanity, by effectively opting out of society and returning to nature (and thus to ourselves). Walking away from materialism, consumerism, scientism, technocentrism and all the other cultural baggage of modern life was not, to him, a sign of defeat or weakness. Quite the opposite. It is a sign of inner strength and wisdom, of humanity reclaiming its roots and re-establishing itself on a more sustainable basis. In both senses (diagnosis of the problem, and prognosis of the solution) modern environmental writers can rightly claim Rousseau as one of their most influential fore-fathers.

Implicit in Rousseau's world-view is a new concept of nature, not as an object for exploration to satisfy our material needs but as part of our inherent spirituality. Nature is an ideal where the individual and the outside world are at one with each other. It is a situation of mutual interest between people and nature.

The first leading figures of the Romantic Movement were the English poets. William Wordsworth (1770-1850) used conveyed a deep and affectionate feeling for nature in his writings. His work not only describes nature, it celebrates it. He revolutionised poetry through a number of major works, and is generally regarded as the first example of English romantic poetry. Other leading Romantic writers include Wordsworth's friend the poet and critic Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834), John Keats (1795-1821), Lord Byron (1788-1824) and Percy Shelley (1792-1822).

It would be over-stretching the point to assume that their works by read by everyone throughout the land and thus influenced a whole generation's thinking and views. But the popularity of their poems and other writings is a useful barometer of general feelings, and provides a hint of the passion with which many people saw and continue to see the natural world around them.

The Romantics value nature as uplifting and inspirational. In some ways the Romantics see nature as a mirror of all that is good within people (reflecting qualities like harmony, naturalness and stability). They see technology, on the other hand, as a mirror of all that is bad within people (reflecting qualities like corruption, power, exploitation, greed and materialism).

Darwin and ecology

The Romantic Movement represented a nineteenth century reaction within the arts against mechanism of all forms. But reactions also appeared within science. During the nineteenth century the notion of progressive change and adaptation began to emerge, within the Romantic Movement and within the debate about relationships between people and society initiated by Karl Marx.

It was within biology that we see the most rapid and far-reaching rise of evolutionary theory, especially after the publication in 1859 of Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_. Darwin was not the first to suggest that species can change progressively through time, but he was first to propose the mechanism of natural selection (literally, survival of the fittest) as the primary means of evolutionary change.

In Darwin's view, organisms are naturally adapted to their environments by natural selection. Over many generations the individuals within a given species which survive and reproduce best will tend to be those best suited to their environment.

By demonstrating that all species are inter-related and are intimately related to environment, Darwin effectively restored the idea of wholeness and inter-relationships in nature. The Darwinian world-view is that people and nature are inherently inter-related. People do not fully control nature, and nature does not fully control people; both control each other.

The progressive acceptance of Darwin's views on evolution encouraged the rise of scientific ecology. Ecology, derived from the Greek work _oikos_ (meaning house, or environment), is the study of the relationships between living organisms and their environment. From a background in natural history and inspired by the writings of literary naturalists (such as Richard Jefferies in Britain, and John Muir and John Burroughs in the United States), the first generation of ecologists established the subject on a scientific basis.

Critics of the reductionism of modern science welcome the holism of modern ecology, which focuses on unity and inter-relationships. One particularly prominent early ecologist was Aldo Leopold, whose widely-read 1949 book _Sand County Almanac_ includes a powerful call for a 'land ethic' and an 'ecological conscience'. Leopold concluded that conservation will not be serious business until it has become a concern for philosophy and theology. In this way he foresaw the emergence of a broader public interest in ecology, through today's ecology movement. For the same reason he has been revered by many modern environmental writers as a visionary and luminary.

Shallow and deep ecology

The ecology movement spans many different viewpoints and sets of values, because people are committed to the ecological world-view for different reasons, in different ways, and to different extents. Many writers try to pigeon-hole people into two groups, which in reality represent the end-points of a continuous spectrum of viewpoints.

The so-called shallow ecology group is fundamentally people-centred (anthropocentric), arguing that nature should be protected because it is valuable to people in different ways.

Shallow ecologists believe that although modern science, technology and politics have played significant roles in creating environmental problems, each can be altered for the better. Their preferred way forward, therefore, given that we have a serious environmental crisis, involves better design and new technologies (such as using wood not plastics, or wool not synthetic yarns), and reformed politics (socialist governments).

At the other end of the spectrum, the so-called deep ecology group is fundamentally nature-centred (ecocentric), arguing that nature is valuable in its own right, irrespective of whether it has utility to people. Deep ecologists prefer mysticism to reductionist science, and call for new nature-centred values and a wholesale transformation of society.

Arne Naess, who founded Deep Ecology, argues that it does not have a discrete philosophy and is not a rigid dogma, but rather "a platform that draws together supporters from disparate backgrounds and gives them a base from which to reassess humanity's relationship with Nature."

This platform has a number of central beliefs. Deep ecologists recognise that all life-forms are inherently valuable and they are concerned for the richness and diversity of life on earth. They argue that people have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs. They call for a substantial decrease in the number of people on earth and a reduction of the amount of human interference with nature. This requires radical changes in the policies which affect the basic economic, technological and ideological structures of modern society, along with a re-ordering of priorities towards quality of life and away from material standards of living.

Postmodernism

In recent years we have seen the emergence of what sociologists call a postmodern, post-materialist world-view which is fundamentally ecological in emphasising harmony between people and nature. It appears in much contemporary environmental writing which stresses the merits of environmental lifestyles and products. Qualities such as craftsmanship, distinctiveness, functionality, design and durability are starting to be taken seriously, not simply out of fashion but because they produce less waste and use fewer material resources.

Taken to the extreme, this sort of world-view is built upon asceticism (self-denial and abstinence from worldly comforts) and simplicity (the love of simple things and rejection of materialism).

The post-modern lifestyle might include leaving a highly-paid city job, selling up and moving to a quiet rural setting, perhaps to farm in a self-sufficient ecological way, or perhaps to start a small-scale craft-business (like painting, making pottery or candles). Whilst such a life doubtless demands great sacrifice in material terms, it brings its own rewards which are treasured more highly than the material hardships - simplicity, closeness to nature, time to think, self-dependence, and modest but sufficient material means.

Post-material values are being adopted, perhaps not widely yet. But as more and more people start to find conspicuous consumption offensive as well as wasteful, and realise that worth or value might be better measured in terms of creativity or decency, not just price or size, the world-view spreads. If such views persist and are more widely adopted, nature stands to gain a great deal.

To the postmodernist nature is a source of pleasure and creative inspiration as well as a source of raw materials. The ascetic lifestyles favoured by some modern environmental writers elevate nature to the same status as humans.

-oOo-

Return to Table of Contents

**CHAPTER 4**

ENVIRONMENT AND SPIRITUALITY

Spirituality shares much with cosmology (the philosophical study of the origin and nature of the universe) and metaphysics (the study of first principles and assumptions), and it reflects fundamental beliefs about reality and meaning (world-views). In the particular context of the environmental debate, spirituality is based on trying to understand our relationship with the earth.

Here we consider some important aspects of three different dimensions of environmental spirituality traditional belief systems, oriental belief systems, and Gaia and reflect on why the Christian voice has been so silent in the environmental debate. Later in this book we will explore the relevance of a Christian perspective on environmental problems.

Spiritual search

Many people have commented upon the apparently widespread search for real values and ultimate meanings in society today. As the third millennium opened, what sociologists refer to as postmodern, post-liberal, post-socialist or post-conservative society turns out to be seriously devoid of spiritual values. Our widespread spiritual hunger reflects a genuine desire amongst many people to better understand how they fit into the great order of things. It also seems to reflect a broader interest in human fulfillment, involving spiritual, intellectual, artistic and cultural growth ... rather than simply the accumulation of material products or the pursuit of power

People's concern for the environment is an inherently spiritual matter. Indeed, it might be that interest in environmental issues offers a contemporary vehicle for mobilising wide public interest in spiritual matters.

This modern spiritual dialogue centred on interest in environment has roots which go back to the wave of environmental activism and social rebellion which swept across the USA in the 1960s. It was a remarkable period of rapid cultural change, with fierce opposition to racial discrimination, widespread condemnation of the Vietnam War, and student unrest in the USA and in Paris. It witnessed the emergence of the new hippy counter-culture, shaped under the liberating influence of psychedelic drugs (like LSD) and new youth-centred music (from the likes of Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell and the Beatles).

Many hippies and sympathisers looked towards the religions and philosophies of the east for a new set of values and lifestyles compatible with ecology and conservation. Zen Buddhism and Taoism in particular became were widely embraced, as the late 60s hippy environmentalists sought new spiritual awareness and liberation from 'the system'.

Out of this wave of concern for environment and its underlying current of social turmoil and counter-culture activism, has emerged the central threads of spirituality within today's environmental movement.

Traditional belief systems

A recurrent theme in much environmental writing is the inferred aridity and emptiness of modern religions compared with traditional religions. Traditional belief-systems, it is argued, were based on respect for nature and on a view of life which emphasised continuity with spirits of ancestors and with sacred sites.

Native peoples, pagan beliefs and sacred sites

Such a perspective finds two outlets - a growing interest in pagan beliefs, and a growing interest in the belief systems of native peoples like the Native Americans and African tribes. Paganism (from the Latin _pagani_ , meaning country people) emphasises the sacredness of the earth and its natural cycles and rhythms. Nature mysticism, reverence of Mother Earth, and a desire to live in harmony with all of creation are all offshoots of pagan beliefs.

Many people assume that native groups like the Native American peoples, the Australian Aborigines and the people of the rainforests had stronger spiritual and emotional ties with their environment than modern society has, so they had a better and more instinctive understanding of how to protect it.

One reflection of this is the tendency of many native peoples to have sacred sites which they treat with special respect, and which they believe connect them with the planet and may contain special spirits linked with their ancestors or with special gods. The Aborigines, who from time to time recharge their spiritual batteries by going walkabout amongst sacred ancestral sites, provide a graphic example.

African traditional religion is also heavily orientated towards respect for nature and living in harmony with it. It is based on belief in one God, who creates and gives all things but has not given people dominion over nature. God's love or anger is seen through natural signs, such as the sun, moon, stars, rain, rainbow, lightning and thunder. There are no temples or churches as such; large trees are worshipped and sacrificed to God.

Yet nature worship is not formally part of the religion, which draws no distinction between the spiritual and material worlds. Religion is interwoven with the traditions and social customs of the people. There are no official priests or religious preaching, and Africans believe that they should only approach God indirectly via intermediaries - the seers, prophets, diviners, medicine men, witches, rain-makers, kings, elders, chiefs, ancestors and spirits.

Native American beliefs

The Native American peoples also had special ties to sacred places and to the earth in general. They believed that since human beings have a physical body and a consciousness or spirit, so must all other bodily things (including plants, animals and even stones). Hence, they argued, all things are 'possessed of spirit'.

According to the Native American view, all materials are alive and can help or harm us. We may speak with them, honour or insult them. They are all related together as members of one universal family, born of a father (the sky or Great Spirit) and a mother (the Earth Mother).

The Native Americans knew a lot about their natural surroundings, and about which plants and animals they could use for food and medicine. They were conservators who lived in an ecologically-sustainable way. They knew when it was safest to burn trees, for example, without running the risk of firing a whole forest. They grew beans and corn together, to maintain soil fertility. They created hunting preserves for beavers and other animals, to prevent over-kill.

But it is quite striking that their attitudes and values were driven more by good manners than science. Animals, plants, and minerals were treated as persons and seen as having similar status.

Oriental belief systems

Some people engaged in a personal search for a proper spiritual basis for environmentalism have looked towards the various belief systems of the east. These contrast markedly with traditional western religions, through their tendency to demand an empathy with nature, their emphasis self-discovery and self-realisation within the individual person, and their down-playing of the pursuit of wealth and power. Three prominent oriental belief systems are Taoism, Zen Buddhism and Hinduism.

Taoism

One particular brand of oriental belief system which - its followers claimed - offered the foundation for a sounder ecological lifestyle, was the ancient Chinese philosophy of Taoism. Rooted in an emphasis on the need to follow The Way (in essence, to follow nature), this had obvious appeal ecologically-conscious western intellectuals seeking a congenial philosophy.

According to Taoist cosmology, the universe arises out of nothing and will ultimately fall back into nothing. It, and everything in it, is in a constant state of change or transformation - becoming and decaying. Tao is natural order, not a concrete thing; it is the source of everything, and it regulates nature and behaviour.

To follow The Way is to be in tune with Tao (in line with the natural order of things). Each person has their own programme or Way (tao) which is an integral part of the greater Way (Tao) directed by some invisible hand or power (not God) which controls the whole universe.

When things are working properly, the individual taos co-operate and integrate with Tao ... so it is imperative that each individual finds and lives according to their own tao. Key elements of living well according to Taoism include deep love (involving compassion, care and respect), frugality (in which needs are met adequately without deprivation or excess), and modesty or humility (there is no need for competition).

Followers of Taoism argue that it both requires and creates a high level of ecological consciousness and so it provides a practical basis for a way of life based on following nature.

Taoism commends a simple, environmentally-sound lifestyle based on love, respect and compassion for all things, using only what is essential and shedding what is not. It is a lifestyle based on simplicity and frugality. Nature is seen as something to be cherished and allowed to take its own course, not interfered with or destroyed. Here, some environmentalists argue, is the basis for a sustainable good life which rejects Western obsession with wealth, possessions, power, prestige and competition.

Zen Buddhism

A similar emphasis on unity and interdependence figures prominently in Zen Buddhism, which many environmentalists claim is the most nature-oriented religion and has many parallels with ecology. They argue that the root of the environmental crisis can be traced in the dualism of Western thought which promotes antagonistic attitudes towards nature and encourages people to exploit nature as something external to themselves. Western people tend to be activists, driven by the motto "when in doubt, do something".

Zen, in contrast, favours inaction and a pattern of behaviour which preserves nature. It sees the world as an organic whole, in which all things are fundamentally interconnected. For the individual, the challenge of Zen is to achieve pure enlightenment, which is approached by contemplating one's essential nature to the exclusion of all else. In Buddhist belief, enlightenment is a state of spiritual revelation which brings an awakening to ultimate truth, by which a person is freed from the endless cycle of reincarnations to which all people are otherwise naturally and eternally subjected.

An intimate relationship with nature lies at the very heart of Buddhist belief. The world and its people have evolved together over a vast period of time, people and nature are governed by the same universal laws, and changes in the environment cause changes in people. The bond is close and two-way; environmental change is linked with moral change (particularly human lust for power and pleasure).

According to Buddhist belief, each person enters into a private relationship with nature via their senses (we see, hear, smell, taste, touch and conceptualise nature), and that our self-centred nature makes us believe that the sense faculties are our own. Consequently suffering in the world could be stopped if sense perception stopped, and the only way to bring this about is by not taking delight in the feelings created by our senses. Thus Buddhism denounces individualism and individual selfishness as evil, and sees the human goal as living in harmony with the moral law that governs the Universe (dharma, or destiny).

Buddhism offers a political philosophy based on dharma rather than the pursuit of happiness. It has five key ingredients which are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. The first is respectful tolerance, meaning that we should live and let live. Next is equality (both secular and spiritual), requiring that each person should follow their own special vocation (dharma). Third, service, which brings self-purification through loving duty to one's community. Service performed, not results achieved, is all-important.

Simplicity is crucial too. It is Buddhist belief that the primary cause of suffering is desire, which makes people constantly want and crave things rather than simply enjoying what they already have. These all support the fifth ingredient, non-violence, not just towards other humans but towards all of creation.

British radical political economist E F Schumacher - a Catholic with great sympathies for Buddhism - wrote in his best-selling book _Small is Beautiful_ that the goal of economic life should be Right Livelihood. When this is achieved the economy provides everyone with sufficient material well-being to meet their needs (if not their greed). But the nature of what people do and how they do it are crucial, because their right livelihoods are inherently satisfying, do not harm others (either materially or spiritually) and involve the individual in service to his community.

Such an economic order would be characterised by ecological harmlessness and stewardship, a refined simplicity of ends and means alike, and above all a scrupulous regard for the quality of individual human lives. This contrasts sharply with the greed, selfishness, materialism, power, pleasure and control of others which Buddhists argue are promoted by the present economic order.

Hinduism

Similar themes of self-fulfillment, harmony with the universe and with other people figure prominently within Hinduism, although the environmental movement has not embraced Hinduism as readily as it has Taoism and Buddhism.

Some Hindus claim that their most ancient books, the Vedas, are really books of ecology which stress that people are part not master of nature. Hindu teaching has it that every part of the universe is a manifestation of God, who has created all things out of spirit ( _atman_ ) and matter ( _prakriti_ ) and placed itself ( _God_ ) in the centre of all. Thus God is present in every natural thing, and everything is holy for a Hindu. There are holy rivers, holy mountains, holy trees, holy cows, holy men and holy women.

Hindus believe that they are born into _dharma_ (the perfect way of living), the objective of which is to find fulfilment. But fulfilment is defined in terms of equilibrium, not personal satisfaction. There are three ways of finding this fulfilment - by living in harmony with the universe ( _yajna_ ), by sharing everything equally among the members of a community ( _dana_ ), and by living life in a simply and healthy way such as by fasting, yoga, meditation, and eating right food ( _tapas_ ).

The three are not mutually exclusive - through _yajna_ it is believed we maintain equilibrium with nature, through _dana_ we maintain equilibrium in society and through tapas we maintain equilibrium within our body. Action without spiritual consciousness ( _mantra_ ) is regarded as meaningless, whereas with it an action becomes pure and it will be honouring to God.

Again this form of oriental spirituality suggests the basis of a proper lifestyle which is environmentally-sound and hence sustainable.

Gaia

One interesting way of looking at the earth and everything on it today is in terms of Gaia - a theory proposed in the early 1970s by scientist-inventor James Lovelock who named it after the ancient earth goddess of the Greeks. It is based on the idea that the planet is alive, and functions as a kind of super-organism in which living things interact with the planet's environment to maintain conditions suitable for life. It borrows heavily from the classical Greek world-view.

According to the Gaia hypothesis the earth's atmosphere would be unstable for life if it were not regulated by the earth's plants and animals and by its environmental systems. Lovelock's original idea was that Gaia followed some purposeful design which organised living things to stabilise the atmosphere and climate. The notion that the earth acted with some sense of purpose in seeking to achieve a predefined goal received widespread criticism and Lovelock has since refined the idea to allow for regulation through the mechanism of feedback (via internal interrelationships).

Gaia is a self-regulating system. The system is highly organised and hierarchical, and all of its components play a part in creating and maintain stability, which is the ultimate goal. If one part of the system changes, or is changed, the rest of the system will adapt so as to maintain stability.

If the Gaia system is goal-directed, as Lovelock proposed, then it suggests some form of pre-programming with relevant instructions; the instructions are endowed, and are provided sequentially as and when required. This inevitably raises the thorny question "Who did the programming and why?". It hints at the notion of the invisible hand of some universal force (perhaps God) holding it all together and making it all work.

The silent Christian voice

It is clear that most world faiths have something to say about nature and the environment. So, where are the Christians in this debate? Their voice has not been loud, and their presence not too obvious despite a long tradition of Christian interest and involvement in caring for the environment and managing it wisely.

The lack of overt Christian interest in the environmental debate seems to stem from four main factors. One is a natural preoccupation with people and personal salvation, which emphasizes human nature rather than nature. Thus the material world is viewed as a backdrop or stage for the drama of human existence; the actor substantially more relevant and important than the scenery. Whilst there are passages in the Gospels which reinforce this view (such as Romans 12:2 which instructs us to conform no longer to the pattern of the world), they must be set into the broader context of appreciating that God created and cares for the whole universe.

The second factor is an underlying lack of deep concern amongst many Christians for the long-term future of planet earth. It may rarely appear in such stark definition, but it is a defensible position given the Christian's belief in a "new heaven and a new earth" which Christ will create when he returns, the old ones having passed away (see, for example, 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:4). A rather extreme view is thus that the sooner this new earth arrives the better, because it will herald the return to earth of Jesus. Why, therefore, should we prolong the present earth or intervene in its decay which is ordained by God (as Psalm 102 and others insist) anyway?

Of course such a position makes an implicit assumption that this earth is expendable, which is clearly not the case. It is God's creation and we are supposed to be looking after it until his son Jesus Christ returns. God alone will decide on the timing of that return, and in the meantime we must accept our responsibilities as God's guardians of his created earth and its natural wealth and beauty.

Thirdly, there is the argument that the environmental debate is a political battleground, and Christianity and politics simply don't mix. But this position is unfounded because Christianity is rooted in the battle between right and wrong, good and bad.

Finally, many Christians point to the obvious dangers of an unhealthy preoccupation with the material world, which brings with it the danger of worshiping false gods (like Mother Earth, or animal spirits) or condoning unacceptable spiritual practices (like the occult, or animal sacrifices to appease "the gods"). To focus on the created world rather than on the creator would be to undervalue the sovereignty of God. It is fine and indeed inspiring to marvel at the world as God's handiwork, but we need to see through that (rather like looking through a window) to God's perfection, care, love and interest in every part of his creation.

The environmental movement is a spiritual battleground. Many environmentalists have a strong empathy with traditional religions and oriental belief systems, and values and practices from both have been borrowed in the fabrication of a new environmental spirituality. But this shift in the axis of spirituality, away from a concern for the soul of people and towards a concern for the soul of the planet, is viewed with deep concern by many Christians. Naturally it raises the question "Why has it happened?", or - perhaps more correctly - "Why has it been allowed to happen?".

There are two possible answers. One is that Christianity has failed to claim and hold on to the spiritual (or moral) high ground and make its claim heard and felt. The ground may have been given away from inside. The second possibility is that new (and arguably false) philosophies have spotted the opportunity to seize this ground and build a strong base of popular support on it. The ground may have been high-jacked from outside.

Doubtless both explanations are partly true. But this emerging environmental spirituality is an important signal that many people's spiritual needs are not being met and it shows that people must have a cause to believe in. Whether it turns out to be a threat to Christian values and principles will depend mainly on whether the spiritual high ground is reclaimed by Christians. After all, the popular interest in environmental issues might create all sorts of opportunities to set the record straight about the role of Christianity in causing the environmental crisis, and in turn open doors for more positive sharing of the Gospel.

-oOo-

Return to Table of Contents

**CHAPTER 5**

CHRISTIANITY IN THE DOCK

The environmental movement represents a major challenge for Christianity, which is threatened in two ways. One is the indirect attack from the other main world faiths which the environmental movement endorses, to which many environmentalists are in danger of drifting if they think that Christianity offers nothing relevant to their interests and needs. There is also the direct attack from those who accuse Christianity of having caused and subsequently perpetuated values, attitudes and behaviour which lead directly to serious environmental damage.

This direct attack started in the late 1960s and was championed by Lynn White, a medieval historian from the University of California, Los Angeles.

The Whyte thesis

White published a paper in the international journal _Science_ in 1967, entitled "The historical roots of our ecological crisis". It quickly became a landmark within the environmental debate.

His central argument is that the ruthless treatment of nature by Western science and technology which now threatens all life on earth has roots in the exploitive attitude toward nature which was created and sustained by Judaism and Christianity. He declared that because of "orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature", Christianity "bears a huge burden of guilt" for the contemporary environmental crisis.

The argument

White points out that the first major environmental problems began to emerge (at least in Europe) at the end of the medieval period, for two reasons, both related to Christianity. First, developments in technology at this time were allowing people more control over their environment. Secondly, the Christian concept of human relationships with nature (the view that all of nature was created by God for the benefit of people) was being more widely accepted.

White's thesis is built on the premise that beliefs shape behaviour; what people do about their environment (how they view it and use it) reflects what they think about themselves in relation to things about them. So the central thread is that beliefs about nature and destiny condition how we use the environment.

He then singles out Christianity as the most people-centred (anthropocentric) of the major world religions, pointing out that non-Western religions tend not to separate people from nature. Western Christianity established a dualism between people and nature, he argues, because no item in the physical creation had any purpose other than to serve people.

White argues that Genesis 1:26-8 gives a mandate for tyrannical human control over nature. Those verses describe how, after creating the universe, living creatures and then people, "God blessed them, and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground'." This gave believers in Christianity a licence to damage the environment, so "the Judeo-Christian tradition is responsible for the desecration of nature in the Western world". He goes so far as to insist that the Bible says "it is God's will that man [sic] exploit nature for his proper ends".

As Christianity spread, older pagan beliefs in the sacredness of places and natural things (which tended to unite people and nature) were destroyed. This encouraged more people to damage and exploit the environment with total indifference to any rights of wildlife and natural objects.

Another thread in the thesis is the link between biblical views on creation, and the development of science and technology. Humans were created to be master over the rest of creation; he was, after all, created after the plants, animals and fishes. This naturally encouraged the development of Western science, technology and industrialization which lie at the root of the environmental crisis.

White argued that modern technology grew within Western (Latin) Christianity - the Roman Catholic and later the Protestant Churches - not within the Eastern tradition (Islam or Eastern Orthodoxy) because the Latin style is active while the Greek Church is contemplative. Hence the human impact on nature is most severe in the West, he concluded. Christianity also gave rise to Western people's implicit faith in perpetual progress (an idea unknown to ancient Greece and Rome and to the Orient), which further encouraged the development and adoption of technology.

White also ties in changing attitudes towards nature and the religious motives on which they were built. He argues that before about 1400 nature was studied as a way of finding out more about God. After 1400 Western scientists started to study physical processes of light and matter, but it was still done in the name of religious progress. So Christianity had a strong influence on the development of Western science, at least between the thirteenth and the eighteenth centuries.

The conclusion

After piecing together the jigsaw of his argument, White cannot avoid drawing the conclusion that "both our present science and our present technology are so tinctured with orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature that no solution for our ecological crisis can be expected from them alone. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not. . . We must rethink and refeel our nature and destiny".

His was a "no holds barred" attack on the teachings of Christianity. He insisted, for example, that "we shall continue to have a worsening ecological crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man [sic]". Yet he surprised many people by suggesting that the solution may lie within rather than outside Christianity. Interestingly, this fact is often overlooked by those who have since repeated White's thesis to support their claim that ecologists' interests are better served by other religions, particularly Oriental ones.

White's solution is a return to the humble attitudes of the early Franciscans. The paper concludes with a proposal that St Francis of Assisi be adopted as the patron saint for ecologists. Francis treated all of nature's creatures as if they possessed souls to be saved (like humans), not as if they were there simply to be used. As White sees it, Francis tried to depose humans from their monarchy over creation and set up a democracy of all God's creatures. This alternative, non-exploitive attitude is necessary, he thinks, rather than one of domination and exploitation.

The reaction

Many writers have commented on White's paper, its message and its impact. But White was not the first to develop this particular line of argument, and "Historical roots" has historical roots of its own. Its major premise, that the Western Christian tradition is indirectly responsible for the rise of science and technology (which made it possible for humans to conquer and dominate nature), has been debated for a good many years.

Yet it was the paper in _Science_ which achieved immediate fame. It was widely reprinted and quoted. Its thesis was often borrowed (with and without acknowledgement), as if it were established fact. White himself was apparently very surprised by the reaction. The question "Why did this particular paper have such instant appeal, and such an amazing reception around the world?" is rarely asked, but it is important to think about.

Several factors conspired to make the paper so popular. It was well written and it appeared in a journal with a wide circulation and was instantly accessible to scientists around the world, so it had a vast number of potential readers. It was also about a topic which the scientific community rarely thinks about - religion and ecology. It had the right tone, too, and was widely viewed as provocative. It wasn't a soft-sell for religion; quite the opposite. It also appeared at the right time, particularly to be adopted by the counterculture groups which were appearing in the early 1970s and exploring new forms of spirituality, especially Oriental ones.

It had an appeal which went far beyond the boundaries of science, and was often interpreted and used in ways contrary to White's original intent. The irony is that White, a Christian with a genuine concern for Christianity, was deliberately looking in the paper for new attitudes within Christianity, not outside it. Yet almost without exception those who have enthusiastically seized on his thesis and used it to promote their own particular agendas are anti-Christian types with a mixture of personal motives.

Evaluation of the thesis

The White paper has probably had a bigger impact on environmental thinking than just about any other single piece of writing. It has played an important role in opening up the ecology-religion debate, and inviting the Christian Church to respond to his accusations. Yet Christian response to the paper and its arguments has been very muted. The thesis is open to criticism on several grounds.

Does belief control behaviour?

White's central argument is that religious belief directly controls the way people behave, which in turn affects nature and the environment. But is it so simple? Would a change in attitudes automatically bring an end to the environmental crisis?

Evidence from around the world, from different cultures and different times, shows repeatedly that actual habits (such as land-use practices) often depart significantly from what the ethical ideals of that society suggest. This is true even when that society believes that nature or land is sacred. Many studies have shown that even societies with reverential attitudes towards environment have spoiled their environments. The Oriental religions, which on the surface have many positive things to say about harmony with nature, have not always prevented environmental damage. China, for example, has a long history of soil erosion and forest clearance.

A culture's environmental beliefs and impacts might be only loosely associated because there may be inherent inconsistencies within the belief-systems. For example, the early American pioneers had strong beliefs in fundamentalist Christianity with its inherent aversion to worldly riches, yet they also had a self-centred materialistic view towards nature which was seen as there for them to use.

Any attempt to portray environmental attitudes in a simple way is difficult anyway for several reasons. First, the evidence is often fragmentary and partial. Can we really understand the environmental attitudes of ordinary people in ancient Greece simply by looking at the surviving writings of a few Greek philosophers? Secondly, the evidence is often contradictory - even within one primary source. The Bible is notoriously difficult to interpret unambiguously, and Christian scholars often disagree between themselves over the environmental message of the Bible.

Added difficulty comes from the inevitable fact that each person who shares the beliefs of a particular religion is an individual, not a pre-programmed machine. They see things differently, understand things differently, have different strengths of faith and different tolerance levels for bending the rules. Some Christians are strict in their efforts to lead a proper Christian life while others are less so, just as some Buddhists are stricter with themselves, and so on. This is not a feature of any particular religion, it is a fact of life.

So the assumption that religious belief controls behaviour doesn't stand up to close examination, and we don't always act as our belief-systems tell us to or imply that we should!

Is environmental damage confined to or worse in Christian cultures?

White assumes that serious damage to the environment first appeared in Christian medieval Europe, and that since then the worst damage has been concentrated in the Christian West. He has a rather rosy image of a trouble-free ancient Greece and Rome and a damage-free Orient. But to jump from these snapshots to concluding that Christianity is the root cause of the damage is to elevate the circumstantial evidence too far. And it presupposes that the circumstantial evidence is correct!

But the evidence tells a rather different story. Archaeological evidence reveals that environmental damage began in many places at least 10,000 years ago, long before the Bible was written, when prehistoric men started to hunt birds and animals for food, and set fire to forests to clear land for fields and to drive large animals over cliffs for food. Documentary evidence in the Old Testament describes the destruction of the evergreen cedars and cypresses of which Lebanon was once so proud. The record shows that they were cleared partly by Egyptian Pharaohs and the kings of Assyria or Babylon, who felled the trees for timber to build temples and palaces.

Documentary sources also indicate that the early Greeks and Romans altered their environment a great deal, before the birth of Christ. Forest clearance, overgrazing and soil erosion were common throughout ancient Greece, and large areas were affected by Roman engineering schemes - including the building of bridges over large rivers and roads through high mountains, and the subdivision of land into equal-sized plots for farming. Historic sources also record widespread exploitation and damage of nature by Oriental cultures. Buddhists felled many trees throughout Japan to build huge wooden halls and temples. Ancient Chinese poetry records dense forest in areas which are now treeless, the clearance starting as far back as 300 BC and was caused by the use of wood to make charcoal for industrial fuel and in building the old Chinese cities. The ancient Chinese custom of burning trees to deprive dangerous animals of their hiding places further aggravated the situation. Timber shortage was reported in the southeastern coastal provinces of China from the tenth to the fourteenth centuries, caused mainly by use of wood in funeral pyres for cremation of the dead.

The evidence of serious environmental problems in non-Christian cultures is not confined to historic examples. Vast areas in Eastern Europe have been badly damaged by industrial pollution and environmental damage promoted by centrally-planned socialist systems, with no input from religious beliefs whatsoever.

So, the records reveal that environmental problems are not confined to Christian times and areas. None of the major world faiths is entirely innocent, and none is entirely responsible.

Did science and technology grow directly from roots in Christianity?

A central thread in White's thesis is the assumption that Christianity had a direct and strong influence on the development of science and technology. But _did_ it?

Many historians of science argue that White's view is too simplistic, and that science and technology evolved in a much more complex way as a result of the interplay of a wide range of factors and forces. It is a false simplification to single out Christianity when many other factors were also at work, like geography, climate, population growth, urbanism, trade and democracy. The origins of Western science and technology are generally believed to be much more multiple, complex and obscure than White allows for.

It is also true that the initial fostering of science, and subsequent control of its development and application are not the same thing. There are grounds for accepting that Christianity had a strong hand to play in the former, but that doesn't necessarily make it guilty of the latter. The real problem seems to lie more with what we do with technology, rather than the fact that technology exists or what forces gave rise to it in the first place. In other words, the problem is really our attitude towards material goods (particularly technological gadgets) which is not unrelated to our attitudes towards nature.

Are other factors involved, as well as science and technology?

White assumes that our attitude towards nature provides the motive and our technology provides the means of exploiting and damaging the environment. Critics argue that he grossly over-simplified the situation. History shows that human mastery over nature (certainly in Europe) had to await population increase, administrative centralization and the development of new technological skills (such as land drainage). It didn't arise simply as a product of Christian teaching that people have dominion over nature.

Some historians argue that the environmental crisis is more a product of capitalism and modern democracy than of medieval Christianity. The recent history of North America, for example, has seen an initial sense of Puritan restraint and purpose replaced by secular values of pleasure, violence and materialism and the emergence of a lifestyle based on mass production, a throwaway mentality and a perpetual drive for possessions.

Does the Bible encourage and endorse an attitude of domination and exploitation of nature?

Perhaps the central tenet of White's argument, and certainly the part which has since been eagerly seized upon by the environmentalists, is the claim that Christian teaching on nature encourages and endorses domination, exploitation, use and damage. White based the claim largely on the instruction from God that humans be made in his image to "rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth [as in land], and over all the creatures that move along the ground" (Genesis 1:26). But a careful reading of the Bible reveals that far from instructing us to become tyrants, we are to be stewards of the earth and all of its creatures.

Many critics find no biblical basis to support White's argument. The emphasis in fact is just the opposite, on our responsibility for the environment. Part of White's problem seems to be his simplistic and unacceptable interpretation of the two versions of the creation story which appear in Genesis. By blurring them together he partly obscured their meaning and left out some significant elements. The first account (the so-called Priestly or P account) appears mainly in the opening verses of Genesis (Genesis 1: l-2:4a), and is generally dated around the fifth century BC. The second (the so-called YHWH (Jahweh) or J account) appears later (Genesis 2:4b-25) but the text is believed to be earlier by up to 500 years.

White overlooks the fact that in the J account God made humans for the purpose of tilling the soil (Genesis 2:4-7:15) and God made other living beings for the purpose of providing them with fit helpers (Genesis 2:18f), whereas in the P account men and women were made simultaneously "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27). He also blurs the sequence of events in the two accounts of creation - happily taking aspects of each and ignoring their basic differences. Moreover, there is no basis in the Bible texts for White's conclusion that all creation was made to serve human purposes. White's summary totally ignores and omits God's repeated affirmation that he regarded all creatures and all living things as having inherent value, declaring that "God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was good" (Genesis 1:31).

Did exploitative attitudes towards nature diffuse with the spread of Christianity!

White argues that the relation between people and nature changed as Christianity spread and eclipsed paganism, and as more and more people saw nature as there to be used and exploited rather than worshipped and valued. But there is little evidence that this happened. Recall, too, that behaviour only partly depends on belief, and White offers a non-standard interpretation of what the Bible teaches about the proper relationship between people and nature.

There is no doubting the argument that Christianity withdrew the natural world from the realm of worship and this removed the religious taboos and restrictions of animism. But this is a good thing not a bad thing!

A Christian response

Lynn White's paper has turned out to be one of the most influential sources in shaping modern environmental attitudes. The so-called "White thesis" is open to questioning on various grounds, as we have seen. But it continues to be widely quoted, if only because it fits comfortably onto the hidden agendas of those environmental writers who continue to repeat his line of argument as if it were established fact.

Despite the obvious problems it has caused - Christianity discredited and the Bible and its teachings dismissed as the root cause of environmental problems - White's paper has brought one important benefit. By causing many Christians and non-Christians alike to think seriously about the impact of Christian thought on the understanding of human relationships with the natural world, it has raised awareness of the problem and suggested some useful directions to explore.

Christianity is no more and no less to blame in causing or continuing the environmental crisis than other major faiths, or than the secular way of life which is so popular today. There are two ways forward for Christianity develop a clearer theology of nature (and the environment), and develop more environmentally-acceptable practices. Both point to a positive and immensely practical environmental Christianity.

-oOo-

Return to Table of Contents

**CHAPTER 6**

SAINTS AND SETTLERS

Critics of Christianity's contribution to the environmental debate centre on the aggressive attitude to nature which they read into the Genesis account of creation. There is another side to the story, because many phases of Christian history testify to a genuine desire to treat nature properly. But many environmentalists prefer to overlook the environment-friendly Christian figures from the past, as well as the early settlers in the brave new world of North America.

Lessons from the saints

There are distinct traces of an environmental Christian heritage in the Bible, in Christian traditions and in the early Saints. Our knowledge of the lives and works of the early Saints is obviously limited and doubtless partisan, but enough remains for us to pick out some notable friends of the earth amongst the saints.

St Brendan of Clonfert (who died in 575), for example, was an explorer who wrote about his great sea-voyage. According to history, the monks who accompanied him made friends out of every creature they met on their travels, taking a particularly keen interest in the sea birds which followed them and in a friendly whale they encountered on the high seas. St Columbanus (who died in 615), a Celt, travelled widely throughout Europe and tried to encourage a respect for nature wherever he went. History speaks of his compassion for nature - the rivers and springs, trees and forests, plants and animals he came into contact with - and there are contemporary reports of him walking prayerfully in the woods and communicating with birds and squirrels (an early forerunner of St Francis of Assisi). St Cuthbert (who died in 687), is also said to have felt a close affinity with animals, and - as seems quite fitting for the British patron saint of conservation - there are tales of him befriending birds.

We also find a sympathetic view of nature in the writings of St Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), the Italian theologian and Dominican friar whose _Summa Theologiae_ (1267-73) was the first attempt at a comprehensive theological system. Thomas had a strong sense of God's abiding presence in creation. He encouraged a wider appreciation of the order, variety and beauty of creation, based on Old Testament teachings about order ordained by God within which humans are careful guardians. He may have been the first to emphasize Christian stewardship of God's creation.

Three particular saints stand out as giants in the field of human relationships with nature - Augustine, Francis and Benedict.

St Augustine

Saint Augustine (354-430) was bishop of Hippo in North Africa between 396 and 430 and one of the Fathers of the Christian Church. His preaching and writing - particularly his book _De Civitate Dei_ ( _The City of God_ ) - had a profound and lasting influence on the subsequent development of theology.

Although the main focus of Augustine's theology was human history and human salvation, it did also encompass the natural world. It had two special hallmarks - an understanding of the universal beauty and goodness of all things, and a rich vision of a gentle but powerful God governing all things. Augustine argued that the perfection and order of the natural world offered a mirror to the glory of God who created and sustains the universe. He believed that nature was created ultimately to bring glory to God, but it also served as a blessing for mankind. He also believed that God's care is not confined to spiritual matters, but that he continually governs the whole of his creation, often through creatures within nature.

St Francis

Without doubt the most influential saint, in the context of nature and conservation, was St Francis of Assisi (1181-1226), the Italian monk who founded the Franciscan order of friars.

Heralded by Lynn White as "the greatest saint of the Middle Ages", Francis lived a life of poverty, simplicity and humility. His was a joyful and productive life deliberately chosen, not a miserable existence born out of circumstance or tolerated grudgingly. Taking Jesus as his role-model of the ideal human, he saw humility as a virtue and poverty as liberation from the bondage of materialism and self-reliance. Francis believed that he did not own or have rights over any creature and he felt free to simply enjoy nature in an aesthetic rather than a utilitarian way.

One of Francis's greatest qualities was his unqualified and seemingly unending love of all creation. To him nature was interesting and important in its own right. All parts of creation were holy and precious. In the delicate petals of the smallest flower, in the graceful flight of the tiniest bird, he saw beauty and God's love and care. He even believed that inanimate parts of creation, such as rocks and cliffs, display God's creative power and attention to detail.

Through the poverty which he so freely embraced, Francis was able to establish a new relationship with creation. Legend has it that he used to preach to the birds and the flowers just as he preached to people, hinting at a belief that they too have souls and moral responsibilities. It is even said that he spoke to a wild wolf at Gubbio in northern Italy, convinced it of its sinful ways as an aggressive predator, and the wolf eventually repented.

Francis tried to set up a democracy of all God's creatures within which every creature would have equal status. This, he hoped, would displace humans from their self-imposed monarchy over creation. He saw the rest of creation as his fellow creatures (he even describes them as his brothers and sisters, under God's fatherhood), given the same responsibility as people to praise God and glorify him as their creator. It was for this reason that White heralded Francis as "the greatest revolutionary in history" and proposed him as the patron saint for ecologists.

The Franciscan emphasis on nature as friend and rejection of damaging intervention in nature has since reappeared in various ways, for example in the nature writings of the Romantics and in modern conservation thinking.

The Benedictines

St Francis's reverence for nature and reluctance to interfere with what he and his monks (the Greyfriars) and followers saw as God's perfect creation encouraged passive worship of nature. In sharp contrast, St Benedict and his followers saw it as a human duty to be active within creation - working, changing and shaping nature as a practical ingredient in their lives of divine devotion, meditation and worship.

St Benedict (?480-?547), an Italian monk, established a monastery on Monte Cassino in Italy in about 540 AD. Conscious of the risk of physical idleness, he ruled that all of the monks should work with their hands in the fields and in shops. The Benedictine rule was derived from Genesis 2, where God placed humans in the Garden of Eden as stewards not masters. They developed a way of life in which each person used their practical and intellectual skills to the glory of God. The Benedictine view, still dominant today, was that to work is to pray.

The original Benedictines settled on the hills and were encouraged to use their skills in developing technology. They were creative and inventive, developing windmills and watermills as sources of power used to convert farming products into manufactured goods (such as leather, fabrics, paper, even liqueurs such as Benedictine and Chartreuse). Benedict's monks cleared forests, drained swamps and marshes and tilled the soil.

The original Benedictine monasteries were important and highly organized communities, in which the primary goal was learning obedience as a means to self-forgetfulness leading to union with God. The communities were also self-contained and self-sufficient. Benedictine Rule 66 said that, if possible, the monastery is "to be so constituted that all things necessary, such as water, a mill, a garden, and the various crafts may be contained within it".

The Cistercians

Gradually the Benedictine monasteries went into decline, after they became more and more dependent on endowments for their survival and as the gulf widened between them and society at large. From the Benedictine tradition grew a Cistercian reform movement (of White Monks), which was established in 1098 along the lines of the original Benedictine rule but with a greater emphasis on poverty, simplicity and withdrawal.

The Cistercians usually settled in the valleys, and in Britain colonized some of the more remote places of northern England. They established monasteries in wooded river bottoms and marshy lands - waterlogged sites, often infested with malaria, which had been left by earlier settlers. Such inhospitable sites were chosen on purpose, as the Cistercians withdrew to the frontiers of settled society. Their lifestyle was self-sufficient and self-contained.

Many lay helpers assisted them to reclaim waste land, clear woodland and forests, and drain marshes and waterlogged sites to create productive farmland (learning how to control malaria in the process). They preferred sheep to cattle, which helped to fertilize and improve pastures as well as yielding better financial returns.

The Cistercians shared the Benedictine view that the world was in some ways unfinished, and that mankind was created as stewards of nature who are in control but are answerable to the Creator at the end of the day for the good condition of the estate. It is mainly from the Cistercians that the monastic tradition has gained its reputation for ecological sense.

Settlers in the New World

The saints offer many lessons about Christian attitudes towards nature and practical land management and resource conservation. More modern examples of environment-friendly Christian lifestyles and practices include the attempts by religious folk to colonize North America. Ironically, the settlers who were seeking to establish new ways of living ended up causing widespread damage to their new environments. This happened partly because they saw the taming of nature as a divine duty. But they were also struggling with what were to them strange environments, and few had any real experience of farming and land management to fall back on.

The Puritans

First to arrive were the Pilgrim Fathers, a group of English Puritans who sailed across the Atlantic on the Mayflower to New England, where they founded Plymouth Colony in 1620 (in what is now South East Massachusetts). Many of the early settlers were Puritans - fundamentalist English Protestants, mostly Calvinists who wished to purify the Church of England of the ceremonial aspects which they dismissed as Catholic and irrelevant to the saving of human souls.

The Puritans saw their task as an immensely spiritual one - to settle in a new land and try to establish a proper biblical lifestyle there, untainted by the ceremonial orthodoxy of the home country they left behind. They took with them dreams for a new future, and hopes for a new lifestyle. To them North America was a land of opportunity and abundance, and they saw their exodus very much as God's calling to his chosen ones to occupy a promised land. Thus they felt a certain close affinity to the people of Israel in the Old Testament whose own lengthy exodus took them to the Promised Land of Canaan.

Many of the pioneering settlers in America took the Genesis command to "be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28) very seriously indeed. In fact they saw it as their God-given duty to convert wilderness into civilization. This licence to "subdue" the earth encouraged them to develop aggressive and profoundly utilitarian attitudes and practices. Reliable accounts survive of Puritan endeavours in colonial New England, which included "assaults upon forests, wildlife, and the soil. Carried on almost like the wars against the Indians, the war against the land resulted in cutting down the big trees, killing much of the furbearing animal population, and exhausting the light cover of topsoil." Many farms failed, because of poor land management and unenlightened husbandry. Before long the colonial landscape was littered with abandoned farmsteads with stone walls and wooden fences enclosing unkept fields and pastures.

A variety of factors help to explain the Puritans' damage of nature in New England, not just their religious beliefs. They were trying to work inhospitable land which had severe natural constraints, including heavy clays. Natural pastureland was in short supply, and the mixed farming and wood-consuming economy of the settlers did not suit the local environment. Understanding of good farming practices was limited, because few of the Puritan immigrants had been farmers in England before they left for the New World.

But there were attempts within the New England colonies to protect wildlife and landscape, even during this era of settlement and exploitation. Each colony passed statutes which made provisions to protect natural resources in the area immediately surrounding the settlements - some restricting the invasion of common fields and pastures by unwelcome livestock (especially hogs), others protecting streams from overfishing and forests from overcutting.

The Mormons

There is no escaping the fact that the Puritans' treatment of nature as there to be used and exploited contributed significantly to the damage of New England. Ironically, the same conclusion applies equally well to our second group of New World settlers - the Mormons.

Indeed the New England Puritans shared many environmental beliefs with the Mormons. Both groups based their policy of land distribution on people's ability to develop resources, and allocated agricultural holdings on the basis of family size. Both believed that God, through nature, had provided them with all their needs. Both encouraged thrift. Both introduced conservation laws to protect scarce timber resources. Both tried to establish a land tenure system of agricultural villages with communal grazing lands. Both saw themselves as bound by a covenantal obligation to develop the wilderness and create Zion (the heaven-like city of God on earth, where his elected ones would live) in North America.

After Joseph Smith who founded the Mormon Church in 1830 was shot dead in 1844, Brigham Young took over leadership and led the Mormons west, to settle by the Great Salt Basin in Utah. The early Mormons believed that it was their duty to return the earth to the perfect state it had been in the Garden of Eden, starting in Utah. They accepted without question the Old Testament view that land was a vehicle through which God rewarded or punished human behaviour, and believed that one of God's principal means of rewarding the faithful was through gifts of land for them to use. The inhospitable Great Salt Basin was their Promised Land.

The Mormons' task, as they saw it, had three key challenges. They were to redeem the earth from the curse which had fallen on it when Adam first sinned in the Garden of Eden, build a peaceful world in which people and nature lived in happy harmony, and finish God's creation by making the earth even more beautiful than it is naturally by sound farming practices.

By developing the land and extracting resources from it the Mormons believed that they were redeeming the earth from its curse as well as establishing a means of subsistence. Like the Puritans, the Mormons' practices caused widespread damage to the environment even though they had a favourable environmental theology and genuinely believed they were following God's instructions. The landscape of Utah still shows much evidence of over-grazing, deep gulleys on steep slopes caused by felling of trees, salinization (high salt concentrations) and water-logging of irrigated desert soils. Some of the damage can be attributed to their zealous taming of nature, and some to their lack of understanding of the peculiarities of this harsh desert environment: they were, after all, used to the temperate environments of the Mid-West and northern Europe.

-oOo-

Return to Table of Contents

**CHAPTER 7**

TOWARDS A THEOLOGY OF NATURE

Most of the debate over Christianity as the root cause of the environmental crisis ignores what the Bible actually says about nature, so it is important to examine this and try to set it into context. But the task of developing such a theology is not an easy one, for various reasons.

Challenges

For a start, the Bible wasn't written for that purpose and there are obvious dangers of reading too much into passages which mention nature, when that is incidental to the main theme or purpose of the passage. We have to dig deep to find relevant material and be extremely careful how we interpret it. We are unlikely to learn much, for example, either from isolated proof tests or from the lack of definitive statements. What's more most of the texts which directly mention the natural world and its creatures are in the Old Testament, so they pre-date Jesus and his ministry on earth.

There is also the danger of transplanting ancient institutions, customs and practices directly into today's society. There are no biblical texts which deal specifically with many modern environmental issues and problems, such as toxic waste disposal, and it is wrong to expect that we will find explicit examples of how to cope with them in scripture. Traditional Judaism has nothing to say about our environmental crisis - in fact, there isn't even a word for _nature_ in rabbinic Hebrew.

A theology of nature must extend beyond the simplistic conclusion that the only message the Bible offers about use of environment is that Adam was told to "subdue the earth".

Nature in context

Why should we protect nature and use it wisely? It goes without saying that nature provides us with all of our material needs - food, water, shelter, resources to manufacture other things from. These utilitarian needs and benefits are obvious. But nature offers us other benefits too.

Nature is something which inspires us, and we appreciate it. Through nature we appreciate the inherent worthiness of things and of their creator. Our emotions are often moved in a powerful way simply by looking at a spectacular view (such as the Grand Canyon) or attractive wildlife (such as exotic birds). The concept of nature portrayed in the Psalms (such as 93 and 104) points to a beautiful and awe-inspiring natural world which has value because it shows God's wisdom and power in its existence and the way it works.

Nature is also an education. Some Bible passages encourage us to draw lessons for our own lives from the ways of nature. The ant, for example, gathers enough food at harvest time to see it through lean times; there are lessons here for lazy people about forward planning (Proverbs 6: 6-8). Nature also teaches us about ethics and caring for other people and things. The birds and flowers are good examples of parts of creation which meet God's expectations for them (Matthew 6:26-30), so they offer a moral and religious example to humans.

Nature also stimulates faith in God. Recall the medieval view of nature as a book of divine revelation, a window to God. If nature is the product of God's creative handiwork, and he is permanently overseeing and controlling it, then we should be able to see something of him in it (Psalm 19:1, Isaiah 42:5, Romans 1:19-20).

A theology of nature must reflect these inherent values within nature, which is not there simply for us to use and abuse as we see fit. But it must also take into account why God created nature, and how self-centred human behaviour has effectively put it under God's curse.

Creation

The creation of the universe is described in Genesis. We must view the creation story in the sense in which it was written - with the emphasis on _why_ God created (which is the domain of theology) rather than on _how_ he did it (the domain of science).

There are two primary concerns in the Genesis creation accounts and these are to emphasize the dependence of all of creation on God and to describe the order God established within creation.

Creation by God

The earth and everything in it were created by God, and they belong to him (Genesis 1:1). If only for this reason creation has intrinsic worth. What's more, God created it all from nothing (Genesis 1:2). It happened by his word; he gave the earth shape, function and meaning simply by instruction. He commanded and creation responded.

The earth becomes progressively more orderly and more habitable as each scene of the creation drama unfolds. Night is separated from day; sky is separated from land; vegetation covers the earth; sun, moon and stars appear; seas and sky are filled with wildlife; people are created. At the end of this work of creation God rested.

The Sabbath marks the crowning glory of this divine act of creation, when the designer and creator could rest and reflect on it all. The creation narratives paint the picture of a powerful God with a clear sense of purpose behind what he was creating.

God created the universe complete. Nothing necessary was left out, and nothing unnecessary was put in. He created wholeness and harmony within nature (Psalm 136:25, Job 39, Psalm 104). This does not necessarily mean there is no room for natural change within nature, such as the extinction of some species and the emergence of new ones. But it does mean that the natural world must be seen in its entirety, as a complex and highly interactive and interrelated system, not just a set of bits and pieces.

Dependence, judgment and thanksgiving

The creation passages also reveal a God with a keen interest in detail. But this was no one-off burst of enthusiasm centred on the initial act of creation. It was to be an enduring and sustained endeavour. The important theme of all things depending on God appears repeatedly through the Bible (for example in Psalm 24:1 and Isaiah 40:28).

God liked the world he created, and was pleased with what he had made. After each part of the universe was created "God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1:10, 1:12, 1:18, 1:21, 1:25). What's more, he liked all of his creation (Genesis 1:31), not just the separate parts. This gives to nature a derived dignity which complements its inherent value.

God's pleasure with his handiwork is not the only sign that he passed judgment over his creation. He went further and blessed all the living things he had created, instructing them to "be fruitful and increase in number" (Genesis 1:22). This blessing also extended to people (Genesis 1:28).

The whole of creation is called upon to praise God, its creator and sustainer. Nature, like people, is repeatedly told throughout the Old Testament to praise God and rejoice. The Psalms in particular are a rich source of such nature texts (Psalm 148: 3-10, Psalm 150: 6, Psalm 65: 12-13, Isaiah 55:12, 1 Chronicles 16:23-33).

The rise and fall of humanity

The crowning glory of God's creation was humanity. Adam, the first human, was created by God as a perfect individual (Genesis 1:26-7). He was set in a perfect world where everything worked properly, everything was where it belonged, everything had all its needs met, and everything was part of a harmony and peaceful co-existence the like of which we have not seen since.

Humanity, like the animals, was also blessed by God and instructed to "be fruitful and increase in number" (Genesis 1:28). Both people and the animals were created by God's Holy Spirit (Psalm 104:30), and both were created from the dust on the ground (Genesis 2:7 and 19). Yet God created people separately to and different from the rest of creation. Humanity's uniqueness stems from the fact that God created him to be like God (Genesis 1:26; Psalm 8:4-5).

Subdue the earth

The creation of people was also unique because they were commanded by God to "subdue" the rest of creation, to "rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28).

This command was not an afterthought. As the very first thing that God says to the people he had created, it must have been a high priority for God and thus for people too. And because God had given the instruction, responsibility for subduing the earth and ruling over the creatures is not one that people have taken on themselves. This is not the same as saying that the rest of creation was made for people. Nowhere does the Bible say that nature was created for the benefit of humans.

The creation account in Genesis 2 gives two particular clues to what this command to "subdue" the earth was intended to mean. The first is that God placed Adam "in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it" (verse 15). This hints at a relationship between God and people that is similar to the one between a tenant farmer (person) and the estate owner (God). The verb _abad_ in verse 15 implies service as well as work; humans were placed in Eden by God's power to serve and preserve the earth on God's behalf. The second clue is that God told people to name the creatures (verses 19-20). It is difficult to imagine God trusting humans to select names for each creature if he did not also trust them to take care of them on his behalf.

The Fall

The earth was created perfect, but things were to change when Adam committed the original sin in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1-14).

In the Fall, humans break their unique relationship with God who pronounces his punishment via a curse on people and nature (Genesis 3:14-24). Nature becomes an enemy to people (verse 17), who are cursed with hard physical labour (18-19), and Adam is expelled from the Garden of Eden "to work the ground from which he had been taken" (Genesis 3:23). All of nature is cursed by the Fall of humanity (Genesis 3:17). This is confirmed in the New Testament (Romans 8:19-21). Nature has paid the price for selfish human behaviour.

God's patience with the humans he had created, who were becoming more and more self-centred and wicked, and less and less obedient, was not limitless (Genesis 6:6), so he sent "the flood" (described in Genesis 6) to wipe out most of creation. The only exceptions were Noah and his family, and the creatures he saved in the ark (verse 7). After the flood waters subsided, God decided to make a new beginning for all creatures (Genesis 9:8-11).

After the flood God turns the clock back for his creation and allows it a second start. God's second covenant with people (the first was with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden) was made with Noah and his family who survived the flood. God repeats his commandment to Noah and his family to "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth" (Genesis 9:1). He also puts humanity in charge of all the creatures and commands them be fruitful and increase in number (Genesis 8:17). In this new covenant, which is to be everlasting, God promises never again to curse the ground because of people or to destroy all living creatures (Genesis 8:21-2). He designates the rainbow as a reminder of this new covenant (Genesis 9:12-16).

The Exodus and the Promised Land

The links between God, people and nature continue through the Old Testament, starting with the journey of the Israelites towards the Promised Land. God promised Abraham that his descendants would become God's chosen people (Genesis 12:2) and he promised them the land of Canaan as an everlasting home (Genesis 12:7), although it would be over six centuries before they would finally occupy it.

God used nature in various ways to help the people of Israel in their great escape from slavery in Egypt (Exodus 1-18). The King of Egypt was attacked with nine plagues including frogs, gnats, flies, animal disease, hail, locusts and darkness (Exodus 7-10) to force him to release them.

The waters of the Red Sea were parted to let through the fleeing Israelites before the Egyptian army (Exodus 14). God provided manna (bread) and quail for them when they were crossing the desert (Exodus 16), and provided water from a rock (Exodus 17:1-7).

When they eventually arrived in Canaan - the long awaited Promised Land - with Joshua now in charge, the Israelites had to conquer it and take it from the people who were already living there (Joshua 1-8). Each of the twelve tribes of Israel was then given its own land to settle on (Joshua 13-21).

Jesus Christ

Because people continued to sin, God demonstrated his love by sending his son Jesus Christ to earth to live as a human and to die on a cross (John 3:16). Through the death and resurrection of Jesus God provides the means for each person to re-establish a proper relationship with God, by forgiveness of their sins (Romans 8:1, Romans 4:25). The apostle Paul describes graphically how the person who believes in Jesus "is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:17).

God's plan was not completed with the ascension into heaven of Jesus. Jesus referred to his second coming as the "renewal of all things" (Matthew 19:28). His return will allow everything God originally created to be recreated with inherent qualities of goodness, wholeness and perfection restored in them (Colossians 1:17, 20 and Ephesians 1:10). When Jesus returns all of creation, including nature, will be released from the curse God imposed on it after Adam sinned (Romans 8:19-22).

Dominion

A central theme throughout the Bible is dominion, meaning rule or authority. Sometimes it refers to ruling over creation, and sometimes it refers to God ruling over mankind. The word first appears in Genesis 1:28, which the King James version translates as "have dominion over". The New International Version prefers "rule over", and the Good News Bible talks of "putting in charge of".

The idea of dominion over nature appears in the Bible in two senses - dominion by God and dominion by humans.

Dominion by God

God's dominion over the earth is derived from his role as creator, expressed in his role as sustainer and controller, and justified by his role as owner. As we are reminded, "the earth is the Lord's, and everything in it" (Psalm 24:1).

Everything he created has value (even if it is not always financial or utilitarian), everything has purpose (even if we can't work out what it is), and everything belongs (even if we don't always think so).

But God continues to be interested in, care for and assume ultimate control of his creation. This does not mean that the original creation was in any way deficient and needs to be repaired. It does mean that he is intimately involved in every little detail of it, every second of the day.

A recurrent theme in the Bible is the balance between God as sovereign over nature (transcendent), yet also active within it (immanent). God is _in_ the world but not _of_ it; within and without, simultaneously. We see this, for example, in his concern for nature after the Flood (Genesis 9:8-17), for every bird and animal (Psalm 50:10-12) and for people on a daily basis (Matthew 6:26-30). We see it, too, in God's control of the elements - earthquakes and volcanoes (Psalm 18:7-8), the sea and waves, the seasonal rains and harvest times (Jeremiah 5:22-3), powerful storms (Psalm 77:18) and thunder (Psalm 29, Psalm 18:13), snow and ice (Psalm 147:15-18). God provides rain to produce grain, wine and oil, and grass to feed the cattle (Deuteronomy 11:10-17).

A recurrent theme in the Old Testament is the way God uses nature as a reward for people's obedience and a punishment for their disobedience (see, for example, Deuteronomy 11:13-17).

Divine punishment comes, for example, in the plagues of Egypt and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Divine provision includes the fertile and bountiful Promised Land (Deuteronomy 8:7-10), as well as animals to help faithful people who are in trouble - such as Jonah and the whale (Jonah 2:1-10), and Daniel in the lion's den (Daniel 6:21-3).

This divine environmental "carrot and stick" has profound implications for a theology of nature, because it means that such a theology must extend way beyond simply caring for plants and animals. It must accommodate the wider issues of human behaviour, even when that behaviour is not even directed at nature.

So, everything in the material world was created by God, is dependent on him for continued existence and belongs to him. It is not God, but it bears his imprint. It is not to be worshipped, but it is blessed and loved by God. A theology of nature should make such considerations explicit.

Dominion by humans

Many environmental writers criticize Christianity's view of nature for being exploitative and damaging. The basis of this argument is the Genesis account of creation which speaks of God creating humans, instructing them to be fruitful and to rule over the other creatures.

The Genesis account paints a clear picture of God creating humans as the head of all living things, to govern the earth and to use its resources responsibly. Human dominion over nature was a gift from God. At creation humans were given the task of earth-keeping (Genesis 2:15). But, some argue, this responsibility was soon abused as people started to exploit and overuse nature.

The so-called "despotism school" views Genesis 1:26-8 as a mandate for tyrannical human control over nature. But the notion of unequal status was built into God's creation, because hierarchies are inherent in nature. The sun rules the day and the moon rules the night (Genesis 1:16), the sea monster Leviathan apparently rules the sea (Job 41:1-34) and Behemoth (possibly the hippopotamus) rules the world of land animals (Job 40:15-24). God rules the whole. Thus humanity's assumed position of superiority over the rest of creation would not be breaking entirely new ground.

But the question of whether the Genesis passages excuse a despotic attitude towards nature really depends on the original meanings of the texts, not on modern translations of them. The two key verbs are _radah_ (generally translated as "to have dominion over" or "rule") and _kabas_ (generally translated as "subdue").

Jewish scholars see in _radah_ a meaning similar to that of a king ruling over an area, with a responsibility to maintain order and harmony. Dominion in this sense implies the subordination of the rest of creation under humans (who are made like but not equal to God), rather than some divine licence for people to oppress and destroy it.

The word _kabas_ poses a problem, too, because in the other contexts in which it is used throughout the Old Testament it implies violence. The same word is used for rape (Esther 7:8), forcing people into slavery (2 Chronicles 28:10) and conquering people and lands in war (Joshua 18:1). But in the context in which it is used in Genesis, it corresponds to working or tilling of the ground (as in Genesis 2:5 and 15).

The emphasis in Genesis does not appear to lie on human power or behaviour. The dominion argument appears to have been seriously overplayed and understudied, particularly by those outside the Judeo-Christian tradition who wrongly claim to have uncovered the root cause of the environmental crisis. We need to look elsewhere for clues about how to treat the environment. The most promising places to start are by looking at the lessons from the Promised Land and from traditional Jewish views on the stewardship of nature.

Lessons from the Old Testament

There is no doubt that many people in the Old Testament had a good appreciation of the need to use nature wisely, if only because it would serve their needs better if they did. Some of the lessons they learned, doubtless through generations of getting it wrong as well as through direct guidance from God, are just as relevant for us today as they were all those thousands of years ago.

We find some guidelines to sound resource management in the Bible, such as the need to look after herds and rotate stock grazing in the fields (Proverbs 27:23-7). The dangers of overgrazing were well known, as Abram and Lot (Genesis 13:6) and Jacob and Esau (Genesis 36:7) testify. Farmers and shepherds were aware of the need to prevent livestock from polluting springs and water supplies (Ezekiel 34:18-19 and Genesis 29:2-8).

But whilst illustrations like these show that stewardship was not uncommon amongst Old Testament people, we really need a much more systematic way of appreciating what the Old Testament has to teach us about managing nature. The Israelites' Exodus to and subsequent inhabitation of the Promised Land offers some valuable lessons.

The Promised Land

Detailed studies of the ways the early Jewish peoples managed land and nature, particularly during and just after the six centuries of the Exodus during which Judaism was established, have discovered that they had a remarkably enlightened and sustainable set of practices. This was motivated by three things - reverence for the world as God's handiwork, a view of the Land of Israel as sacred, and a belief in the responsibility of society to ensure the safety and comfort of people who are created in the image of God.

As well as figuring so prominently in the history of the Jewish peoples, the whole idea of God giving the Promised Land to the Israelites has some significant implications for how people should relate to nature today. This story may be more relevant to the environmental crisis than the story of the Garden of Eden, because the Promised Land is a divine gift to a _fallen_ people.

Fundamental principles

Some basic principles underlie the way the Israelites viewed the Promised Land and these are highly useful reminders of how we should treat nature today.

_It is a gift;_ because those who possess it did not create it. Moses reminded the Israelites that it is God who gives them the ability to produce wealth (Deuteronomy 8:17-18). This is just as true today.

_It is not a permanent gift;_ because it belongs to God and is given to us only for a time, and only for so long as it is properly used. Moses reminded his people time and time again that everything they had was God's (Deuteronomy 10:14). God has made humans tenants not outright owners of the earth, and we are given rights of habitation and use which reflect this. God instructed Moses on Mount Sinai to tell the Israelites "the land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants" (Leviticus 25:23).

_God is_ _landlord_ _and he dictates the rules_ ; God imposes limits of human control and requires regular periods of rest for the land - a sabbath every seventh year in which fields were to be left fallow, a year of jubilee every fiftieth year during which fields would lie fallow and the land would be returned to its original owners.

_God_ _continually cares_ for the Promised Land; Moses also reminds his people that it is a land God cares for (Deuteronomy 11:12). God cares for his creation so much that he has promised ultimately to repossess it and repair its perfect form (Romans 8:20-1).

_The gift is not given as a reward;_ the people chosen to receive the gift of the Promised Land do not deserve it because they have been faithless and wicked. This creates a moral predicament for them, because having failed to deserve it beforehand, they must prove worthy of it afterwards. If they do not use it properly, it could be taken away from them.

Conditions of the tenancy

If the Promised Land (or in the more general sense nature) is a gift from God to people who do not really deserve it, how can they prove themselves worthy of it? God grants the tenancy on three conditions.

First, the tenants are required to be faithful, grateful and humble. It is their responsibility to remember that the land is a gift. Moses reminded them "When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the Lord your God for the good land he has given you." (Deuteronomy 8:10).

Second, they must be neighbourly and honest. This means being fair and just, kind to one another, generous to strangers and honest in transactions. It is neighbourly for us to preserve the land for those who follow us, because it is an inheritance not a possession.

Third, those who receive the gift are expected to practice good husbandry and look after it on behalf of its ultimate owner. We shall consider below what this meant in practice for the resource managers in the Old Testament.

The theme which underlies most of the Bible passages dealing with the Promised Land is humans as steward or tenant of God's created world. God (the owner) gives people (the tenants) responsibility to look after it on his behalf until the time comes for God to come and transform it completely. Humans are also given fairly clear guidance on how they should look after it.

Exercise of stewardship: the Jewish view

There are many references throughout the Old Testament to human stewardship of creation, especially of the land itself. It is possible to fit together the main pieces of a rich and complex jigsaw which portrays the Jewish view of stewardship, derived from the Bible and from Jewish scholarship, tradition and legal sources.

Ownership and accountability

The exercise of stewardship is governed ultimately by a keen awareness of God's ownership of creation and humanity's responsibility to him for the protection of it. The Jewish scriptures are unambiguous about the relationship between people and God, distinguishing between God as creator and owner of the earth (Deuteronomy 10:14 and Psalm 24:1) and people as its humble caretakers or stewards (Genesis 2:15 and Leviticus 25:23). So although God created the earth and appointed mankind to rule over it and to use all its produce for sustenance (Genesis 1: 28-30), everything in the world still belongs to God.

God chose mankind to be resident caretakers of his creation. This was a tremendous privilege. But with it came the responsibility of looking after God's earthly estate. The notion of accountability to God is implicit in both the biblical description of God's gift of creation to humanity and the image that rabbis had of "the good person".

Laws and rules

The practical outworking of stewardship against this overriding sense of ownership and accountability was also governed by a number of specific rules which set out humanity's responsibilities for his behaviour towards all parts of nature. Some were derived from traditional Jewish legal material, the so-called halakhic sources.

The three most important rules are concerned with destruction of nature, conduct towards animals, and human restraint.

_Do not destroy_ This rule derives from the Hebrew _bal tashhit_ which means "do not destroy" (the literal meaning is "you shall not wantonly destroy"). It is borrowed from a set of instructions on how to make war which appear in Deuteronomy \- "When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an axe to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them? However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls" (Deuteronomy 20:19-20).

This passage provides the basis for the more general rule which governs human attitudes toward nature. The rabbis took this to mean that any destructive activity is forbidden, and this was interpreted broadly. It was an entirely negative rule, stating what is not allowed but offering no positive guidance or encouragement.

All manner of activities were forbidden, including the cutting off of water supplies to trees, overgrazing of the countryside, the unjustified killing of animals or feeding them harmful foods, hunting of animals for sport, extinction of species and destruction of cultivated plant varieties, pollution of air and water, overconsumption of anything and waste of mineral and other resources.

The rule was restrictive because it applied to everybody. Thus it was as grave an offence to destroy nature on one's own property as it was to damage or destroy nature on a neighbour's land.

_Pain of living things_ This rule also dictated what is not permitted. In this case people were not allowed to inflict _za'ar baalei hayyim,_ which translates as "pain of living things". The rule governs the human treatment of animals, in essence forbidding inhumane conduct towards animals.

The Old Testament references are very specific. It was forbidden, for example, to take a mother bird from a nest with her young (Deuteronomy 22:6-7). A cow or sheep was not to be slaughtered for sacrifice at the same time as its young, and a young animal was not to be taken from its mother before it was seven days old (Leviticus 22:27-8). A farmer was forbidden to plough with an ox and a donkey yoked together, because it would impose great hardship on the weaker animal (Deuteronomy 22:10). An ox was not to be muzzled while it was treading out the corn (Deuteronomy 25:4).

Although these might appear at first sight to be rather idiosyncratic cases which lack more universal relevance, there is clearly an underlying concern for the physical and emotional state of the animals concerned. As some have pointed out, the ultimate extension of this particular rule is to abstain from killing animals at all. This is one defence of vegetarianism, which has long appealed to Jews although it is not required by Jewish law.

_Human restraint_ The third area of concern, not explicitly a rule, was awareness of the need for restraint and sensitivity in the exercise of human power. A number of general guidelines for practical land management, which also impose some restraint in stewardship, appear in the Old Testament.

For instance, taking care of one's animals is both humane and productive (Proverbs 27: 23-7). When harvesting the crops, the owner of the field was to reap in such a way that something was left for others without resources of their own, including his neighbours and other creatures (Leviticus 23:22).

Such guidelines are practical and doubtless very effective. They encourage sustainable forms of land management, and enable the production of surplus food and raw materials which can be given to the poor and the needy. They also seek to promote a humane attitude towards the whole of creation, in which people and nature are working together in partnership in a mutually advantageous cooperative venture.

Thanksgiving

Practical issues were also dealt with in the laws of tithing and of gleaning, which recognize God's goodness and continuing provision.

The law of tithing recognizes that everything which the land produces - grain, fruit, animals - ultimately belongs to God (Leviticus 27:30-3, Numbers 18:21-32, Deuteronomy 12:5-18, Deuteronomy 14:22-9). One tenth of all produce from the land was to be set aside as a gift for God's provision. The people of Israel were instructed to eat the tithe of grain, new wine and oil, along with the firstborn of the herds and flocks in the presence of God, with thanksgiving and rejoicing.

The law also required that a food reserve be built up every three years, and then given to the Levites (who had no land of their own), to local widows and the fatherless and homeless. Doing this would ensure that God continued to bless their work and their fields.

Tithing was a powerful affirmation of stewardship which recognized that everything we have belongs to God and makes compassionate provision for the disadvantaged.

The law of gleaning also recognized the need to look after the poor, by a form of land management which encouraged a sharing of resources (Leviticus 19:9-10, Deuteronomy 24:19-21). It required that the harvests in the fields were not to be reaped to the very edge or the remnants collected afterwards. Neither were the vineyards or olive groves to be stripped bare.

Some produce the crops in the field corners and edges, that which had fallen during harvesting, the grapes and olives which had fallen to the ground and those which were left on the branches after the first collection would be left for the poor and the homeless (thus sharing resources).

Again, God would bless the works and land of faithful believers who honoured his law and shared their resources with the poor and the needy. Incidentally, the practice of gleaning doubtless had conservation value as well, because the spared areas would be useful refuges for wildlife.

Sabbath

Practical and spiritual issues converge most fully in the Jewish custom of allowing (indeed, instructing) people and nature to rest on a regular basis - every seventh day (The Sabbath Day), every seventh year (The Sabbatical Year) and every fiftieth year (The Year of Jubilee).

_The Sabbath Day:_ perhaps the most important element in the cycle of Jewish activities is the weekly Sabbath, a day of rest. It owes its origins to the day of rest which God took after he "had finished the work he had been doing; on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done" (Genesis 2:2-3).

Moses instructed the Israelites to set aside the Sabbath Day each week as a holy day on which they should rest from work and think of God. He told them "the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates" (Exodus 20:10).

As well as the spiritual benefit of suspending busy routines for one day a week to reflect on higher matters, setting aside the Sabbath also has profound practical implications for nature. Limiting human work and activities also restricts our ability and opportunity to change nature, whilst the Sabbath also allows periods of rest for domesticated animals (Exodus 23:12). So God, people and nature all gain if the Sabbath Day is taken seriously.

Setting aside a weekly day of rest must be seen as a positive not a negative step. The traditionally observant Jew does more than rest, pray and refrain from ordinary work (which are all highly relevant to stewardship) on the Sabbath. He creates nothing, destroys nothing and enjoys the bounty of the earth. In this way the Sabbath becomes a celebration of our tenancy and stewardship in the world. The Sabbath is thus a releasing not a restricting day.

_The Sabbatical Year:_ the Sabbath idea of six days of work followed by a day of rest is mirrored in the Jewish belief that the land should rest and lie fallow every seventh year. The basis of this Sabbatical Year was spelled out by God to Moses on Mount Sinai (Leviticus 25: 3-7, see also Exodus 23:10-11).

The land which God gave to the Israelites could be harvested for six years - the fields sown, vineyards pruned and crops gathered - but every seventh year it was to be allowed to lie fallow, as a "sabbath of rest". Every seventh year the fields were not to be sown or reaped or the vineyards pruned or harvested. This was not to be a time of hardship and misery; everyone's basic need for food - the family, their servants and hired workers - would be met by whatever grew naturally on the land during the seventh year. Even wild animals were to be cared for by letting them have what was left in fields and orchards.

The tough regulations forbid commercial transactions on a large scale. The crop must be used for its natural ends - fruit is to be eaten, juices drunk, oil to anoint human bodies. Such regulations emphasize the sacred character of the natural products in the seventh year, which reminds everyone of God's continuing care and provision.

The Sabbatical Year laws demand an equalization of all who live off the land and dismantle the notion of private ownership (of land and other resources). People are allowed to eat what they have stored only as long as God's natural storage (the open fields) hold their crops. They must release the grain they have stored when the wild animals can no longer find food. This provides a vivid reminder that people must live according to the rhythms of nature, despite their obvious ability to circumvent them using technology.

The principal lesson from this idea of a sacred Sabbatical Year is that we are allowed to use God's gifts for our daily needs, but no more. Nature is not to be exploited for greed or profit. In the law of the Sabbatical Year God was reminding people that he owns the land, and they are simply his temporary custodians.

_The Year of Jubilee:_ an even more graphic reminder that all land and all of nature belong ultimately to God comes with the idea of a Year of Jubilee every fiftieth year (Leviticus 25:8-55). The Israelites were instructed to consecrate that year and "proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants" (verse 10). That year, too, each Israelite was to "return to his family property and each to his own clan" (verse 10). They were only to eat what came directly from the land; there was to be no sowing or reaping (verses 11-12).

The most important clauses in the Jubilee regulations concern the ownership of land. God reminded the Israelites that "the land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land" (verses 23-4). Land was to be returned to its original owner if it was originally sold because of poverty (verses 25-8), and houses in villages without walls round them could also be redeemed and were to be returned in the Year of Jubilee (verse 31).

The Jubilee laws were a powerful reminder that no one had unconditional rights over the land, which belonged to God.

Stewardship

Genesis 1:26-8 lies at the heart of the debate over Christianity and environment. Ironically, the despot school championed by Lynn White and the stewardship school favoured by Christians both interpret this same passage in almost diametrically opposing ways. Both schools agree that the passage sets mankind slightly outside and above nature, but they disagree fundamentally about whether this dominion is to be arrogant or responsible. The Christian interpretation is that we have an obligation to God to act responsibly, as trustees or stewards.

Trusteeship

A trustee is someone to whom the legal title to property is entrusted to hold or use for another person's benefit. It can be argued that this is precisely the role God has created for people, as trustees of his natural creation on his behalf.

We are beneficiaries not owners of the earth. This implies that in some ways God has made us his special partners, intending that we should be the instrument for fulfilling his sovereignty over creation. By allowing humans to name the animals and instructing them to "subdue the earth", God is challenging us to be co-creators with him, responsible to some extent for the future of nature.

This implied partnership with God is the ultimate privilege for humans. But it brings with it unprecedented responsibility to exercise that creative power properly. This means that we should be neither neutral or exploitive, but productive and protective. The purpose and end result of our use of creation must be good, just as God's creation is itself good. We therefore cannot avoid our responsibility, to both God and other people (who are also his partners), to preserve and protect nature.

As trustees of God's estate on earth, humans are responsible to its owner for its safe keeping, stability and survival. Causing damage to nature, overexploitation of resources and radical changes to the environment are simply not compatible with the responsibilities of being trustees.

Principles of stewardship

Acting as stewards of God's creation means working within the rules set by God. Human autonomy to do as we please also has limits which are set by God. These rules or guiding principles are apparent in a number of ways:

i. _God retains ownership of the earth_. We are his stewards or tenants, much like a tenant farmer who has temporary custody of a property and must one day hand it over to others. On that day the tenant must account for his actions while the property was in his care. This was the meaning of the Sabbatical Year and Jubilee Year in the law given to Moses.

ii. _Stewardship is a gift from God, not an achievement of people_. It is our privilege and responsibility to look after God's earth on his behalf. The gift is always conditional on God's provision, and it can be taken back just as easily as it was given. No amount of good work by people (for example, no amount of conservation work, no matter how genuine and well-intended this might be) will alter the fact that the role is a gift.

iii. _Stewardship is a gift to us collectively, not to individual people_. Attempts to monopolize land and other resources for private gain are clear (but common) violations of the underlying rule.

iv. _Unlike God, we do not create from nothing, we work with pre-existing things_. Thus, for example, in taking responsibility for naming the animals on God's behalf, Adam was very much working with givens. We work within the limits of a created order with its own pre-existing character. When we try to create _de novo,_ using our brightest brains and our best science and technology, we are still reshaping the material that God created for us. Genetic engineering and nuclear power, perhaps the two most prominent of our recent attempts to radically alter God's created order, are based ultimately on re-ordering what already exists.

v. _We must honour the integrity of the pre-existing material_. It was, after all, created by God who made it good. Thus responsible human use of the environment must take into account the balances and harmonies of the natural world.

vi. _We are always answerable to God_. Our freedom to "subdue" is always limited, and under a higher authority (God). Dominion in the Old Testament sense does not mean the right to pollute, oppress and destroy. Human dominion over the rest of nature was, from the start, to be strictly controlled by God.

vii. _We are stewards not owners of the earth, and we have a fundamental obligation to administer God's creation wisely._ We must exercise authority over the rest of creation on behalf of God and with appropriate responsibility. The responsibility is to care for the earth on behalf of its owner (God). This allows us to use nature for our own needs but does not allow us to destroy it since it is entrusted to us for a limited period. A useful analogy is a book borrower in a library, who is entitled and expected to make the best use of its contents but trusted to handle the books properly so that they are available to others.

viii. _Our stewardship of nature should reflect the "good shepherd" model for which there is ample support in the Bible._ Such a shepherd is totally responsible for the welfare of his flock but exercises full authority over them at the same time. Jesus is the exemplary model (Luke 12:42-8).

In final analysis, having the basis for a theology of nature is just the starting point for a serious rethink of how environmental Christianity should be. Such a theology might guide our attitudes and provide a context for a wider reflection on where modern society appears to be heading.

-oOo-

Return to Table of Contents

**CHAPTER 8**

A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

We have viewed stewardship as a gift of God, and as something we are all responsible for. We also looked at stewardship in the specific context of nature and natural resources, but of course we are called to be stewards of all of God's material gifts.

Guidelines

While the Bible does not tell us specifically whether we should buy a bigger car, have no car or keep the one we have, it does give us certain principles by which we must measure our lifestyle and thus our success at being God's stewards. Such principles or guidelines are more important now than ever before, in an age of materialism and consumerism which teaches us that success is found in what we possess and that happiness depends on money.

Although the Bible is not a handbook for resource management, and was never meant to be one, it does contain more than a few clues about how we should treat the material gifts that God so freely gives to us. This includes the gift of wealth and possessions, as well as natural raw materials (like energy, water, earth and fertile soil).

The following guidelines seem particularly relevant:

We are stewards not owners of our possessions.

Like nature, our possessions and wealth belong to God not us. Thus we are stewards not owners of our wealth, which is part of the material gifts of creation. But although our wealth and possessions are not ultimately our own private property, we are still empowered and encouraged by God to use them. The New Testament steward was responsible for all aspects of the management of the estate (including its material production and the people on it), even though the estate was not his.

Our possessions are a blessing from God.

Material wellbeing and even prosperity are blessings from God. Provided we recognize that our wealth and possessions are a gift from God, and we use them as God intended, we have no reason to feel compromised if we seem to be well endowed. Poverty is not idealized, and suffering, hunger, or exploitation are not biblical virtues. Neither is prosperity condemned as evil in and of itself. It is not ownership that matters, but how we acquired the wealth and possessions, how we value them, and what we do with them.

In his covenant dealings with people God rewards obedience with material prosperity, but he always retains sole ownership of everything. For example, Abraham became wealthy as part of God's promise to him, and the people of Israel moved into a land flowing with milk and honey. Jesus promised that those who first seek the kingdom of God will have all things added to them. So God does not condemn us simply because we are wealthy. Some of God's best servants (like Abraham) were wealthy. But they didn't hoard their wealth or regard it as the most important thing in their lives.

Material success is not a guarantee of righteousness.

Some people argue that if material prosperity is a blessing from God, surely those who are wealthy and successful must be righteous because they have been blessed by God. But this isn't the case. To use material prosperity as a measure of God's faithfulness to a person or people is to misunderstand the nature of his blessing. Not all wealth or all possessions are gained by fair or righteous means. In some cases wealth might derive from oppression and exploitation, which God regards as sins. There is obviously no way that God will condone wealth won for example in a bank robbery, by corruption, or by selling the products of slave-labour.

So although the Old Testament says that God gives prosperity to the righteous (for example, in Psalm 37:3-4), it denies the opposite - that wealth and prosperity always indicate righteousness. There is also a constant tension between the promise of prosperity for the righteous, and the simple fact that the righteous are sometimes poor and needy through no fault of their own. This ambivalence surrounding prosperity and its interpretation poses particular problems for Christians.

Possessions are to be enjoyed but kept in perspective.

The Bible does not teach that we should be self-conscious about our possessions, provided that we have the right attitude towards them.

Whilst Jesus was a man of few possessions, he was not an ascetic and found little comfort in overt self-denial. He glorified neither poverty nor abstention from pleasure, and his attitude was that good things like food were there to be enjoyed. But they were not essential for him, and he was not attached to them (see, for example, Matthew 6:25-34).

The apostle Paul, like Jesus, had no attachment to material comforts and was happy to enjoy good things but not to get hooked on them. We see this, for example, in the free and open way in which Paul shared whatever he had and in his contentment in all circumstances (Philippians 4:11).

Obsession with possessions is unhealthy and unbiblical.

We often forget that the principal source of our human dignity is the fact that God created us in his image. It is easy to fall into the trap of believing that dignity comes with wealth, status or power. Hence an obsession with wealth and possessions is not at all uncommon. Yet they can become idols for us to worship, and we can readily let them come between us and God.

Paul pointed out that "we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it" and "people who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith" (1 Timothy 6:7-10).

Jesus warned those who direct their attention and affection on money that, as a result, they have less of both for God. He stressed that "where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. ... No-one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." (Matthew 6:21-4).

Jesus also warned against being so obsessed with our wealth that we keep it to ourselves. He told the story (Luke 12:13-21) of the rich young fool who believed that all he had to do was store up more and more crops and possessions then he could "take life easy; eat, drink and be merry" (verse 19).

Clearly it is not biblical to accumulate wealth and material possessions simply for the sake of it, because we can start to crave for them out of pure greed. It is also unbiblical to gain wealth by injustice and oppression. The real question about money for each of us is not how much or little we have, but what role it plays in our life.

God expects total commitment and trust.

God provides for all our needs by controlling nature. He also provides all the material things we need (but not necessarily all that we _want_ ) _._ In return, he expects us to be totally committed to him and his kingdom. Jesus illustrates this by the story of the man who found treasure hidden in a field then sold all he possessed to buy that field; and the merchant with the fine pearls (Matthew 13:44-6).

God also expects us to trust him, not only for the major decisions in life but also the small ones. Jesus said that commitment requires total trust, so that we should leave material things such as food and clothing to God and trust that he will provide what we need (Matthew 7:7-12).

Jesus speaks of these things in the story of the rich young man (Mark 10:17-31). When he asked Jesus how could he inherit eternal life, he was told "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" (verse 21).

The young man in question was wealthy and sad at the prospect of having to give it all up. Wealth is one of the greatest barriers between man and God.

We are expected to share our resources with others.

We have already noted that it is what we do with our money and possessions that counts, not how much we have. The Bible suggests that one of the best uses of our material resources is to assist those less fortunate than ourselves. For instance, Psalm 41:1 tells us to use our money to help the poor, and Paul stressed the importance of those with money passing at least some of it on to those without (2 Corinthians 8:14). We are instructed to give cheerfully (2 Corinthians 9:7), not reluctantly.

God's special concern is for the poor and the needy, who are often poor and needy because of unjust distribution of the available resources. They should have first call on any resources which are made available (Luke 6:20-1).

A genuine concern for others ( _koinonia_ ), exhibited for example in the communal sharing of possessions and meals, was a hallmark of the early Christian church (Acts 2:43-7, 4:32-5, 5:11). The sharing did not necessarily mean a total rejection of private ownership. It was more that people were released from the _need_ for private possession (Acts 4:32). This was a gradual process which took place according to the needs of the community. It flowed from the deep spirituality, love and trust which bound the early Church together; it was not a hard and fast rule to be obeyed at all times and at all costs.

The Christian "good life"

The biblical lifestyle which centres on Jesus should be different from the prevailing values and lifestyle of con temporary culture. It should not centre on wealth or material possessions, it should naturally include sharing with and caring for other people, and it should be based on moderation. The Christian lifestyle should emphasize quality of existence and reverence for life.

But it should also be a life of celebration, not a sense of constraint or imposed limits reluctantly adopted. Within these sorts of guidelines, we should work and pay attention to what is useful, but we should also enjoy life. This might require us to re-order our lives to make room for celebration, delight, worship and contemplation.

Such qualities should find favour amongst environmental thinkers because they are entirely compatible with the environmental idea of the good life. The environmental good life seeks to reduce ambition and desires and avoid competition between people by embracing voluntary simplicity and love and respect for all things. It is based on shedding what is unnecessary and seeking simplicity and frugality.

Solutions to the environmental crisis

Christianity and secular conservation have different views on what we should do about the environmental crisis. The secular view is that the crisis is a _practical_ problem that requires a _practical_ solution involving science, politics, changes in behaviour, consumer patterns and so on. To Christians the crisis is a _spiritual_ problem that requires a _spiritual_ solution involving a change in individual people who must repent of their self-centred ways and be reconciled to God through a faith in Jesus.

In reality, both are required. We need to adopt both spiritual and practical measures if we are to do anything significant about the environmental crisis. There are no simple solutions, and different dimensions of the crisis will ultimately have to be tackled differently.

Major environmental problems like global warming, sea level rise and loss of species are here and they are serious. Secular conservation offers a rather bleak outlook, because such complex problems are going to be hard to solve. Indeed, for many of the key problems no realistic solution is in sight. But Christianity offers hope, through the promised redemption of all creation.

Many Christians see a real solution in world mission and evangelism, presenting the Gospel of salvation to all people around the world. Then they can make up their own minds whether or not to believe in and follow Jesus.

There is general agreement between environmentalists and Christians that we hold the key to solving the environmental problems, although Christians may be excused a little in thinking that God should intervene and sort out the mess. If, as we know from experience, God is both transcendent and immanent, why does he not step in and simply make the world a better place for us all? He did, after all, create everything (including us) so repairing the damage must be well within his means. This is basically the same question as "Why does God allow disasters to happen, and suffering to occur?"

The simple but truthful answer, of course, is that we just don't know. We can't read God's mind, and we can't see things as he does. Some would say that God uses things like suffering, disasters and environmental problems to teach us lessons (echoing the Old Testament view that God uses nature as a reward or punishment).

God loves the world and everything in it, and an alternative interpretation is that God wants us to surrender our lives to him unconditionally. He could act on our behalf (he did with the Flood, after all) but he wants us to make the first step, towards him. He gave us free will and expects us to use it. This has clear implications for each of us as individuals, but it also underlines the responsibility of all Christians to engage in sharing the good news of the Gospel of Jesus with the people all around them.

-oOo-

Return to Table of Contents

REFERENCES

Attfield, R. (1983) Christian attitudes to nature. _Journal of the History of Ideas_ 44; 369-86

Black, J. (1970) _The_ _dominion of man; the search for ecological responsibility_. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press

Bradley, I. (1990) _God is green._ London, Darton Longman and Todd

Doughty, R. (1981) Environmental theology; trends and prospects in Christian thought. _Progress in Human Geography_ 5; 234-48

Glacken, C. J. (1967) _Traces on the Rhodian Shore; nature and culture in western thought from ancient times to the end of the eighteenth century_. Berkley, University of California Press

Kay, J. (1988) Concepts of nature in the Hebrew Bible. _Environmental Ethics_ 10; 309-27

Leopold, A. (1966) _A sand county almanac_. New York: Oxford University Press

Lovelock, F. E. (1987) _Gaia; a new look at life on earth._ Oxford, Oxford University Press

Meadows, D. _et al_ (1972) _The Limits to Growth._ London, Earth Island

Naess, A. (1988) Deep Ecology and ultimate premises. _The Ecologist_ 18 (4/5); 128-31

Park, C. (2001) _The environment: principles and applications_. London: Routledge

Park, C. (2007) _Dictionary of environment and conservation_. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Paehlke, R. C. (1989) _Environmentalism and the future of progressive politics._ Cambridge Massachusetts, Yale University Press

Pepper, D. (1984) _The roots of modem environmentalism_. London, Routledge

Roszak, T. (1972) _Where the wasteland ends._ New York, Doubleday

Schumacher, E. F. (1973) _Small is beautiful._ London, Blond & Briggs

Tuan, Yi Fu (1974) _Topophilia; a study of environmental perception, attitudes and values_. New Jersey, Prentice Hall

White, L. (1967) The historical roots of our ecological crisis. _Science_ 155; 1203-7

Return to Table of Contents

