Biblical-Theological Perspective on Ecology
Biblical-Theological
Perspective on Ecology
To
the LORD your God belongs the heavens, even the highest heavens,
the
earth and everything in it (Deut. 10:14)
Humanity,
today, faces one of the most difficult problems of its existence : environmental
disaster of the world. Man is being challenged with the prospect of global warming,
ozone depletion, deforestation, desertification, acid rain and global
pollution. The pollution of streams,
rivers, lakes and oceans threatens our most valuable resources –water. Wet
lands, beaches, valuable farmlands are disappearing as a result of the greed
and ignorance of development. Our next most valuable resource – arable land,
over 50% of it has been irrevocably lost due to destructive agricultural
practices. Of the remaining land, 30% may be lost in the near future, due to
continued erosion and poisoning by chemical fertilizers and pesticides. This
would leave us with only 4% of the earth’s surface to feed an exponentially
growing global population.[1]
This is undeniably alarming, for it’s sure to affect humanity as a whole.
The Need for
Ecologically-minded Christians
Christians,
especially we Tribal Christians, often do not take the issue of ecology and
environment seriously. We unhesitatingly cut down trees, pollute our rivers and
hunt down wild animals at will. A sense of preservation of energy is very small
among us. It is high time Christian Youths widen their horizons and put their
thoughts on these pressing issues. I give three good reasons to be alarmed:
1. Defense
of Our Faith Demands It. People of the world often blame
Christianity for the depletion of the earth’s resources. In 1967 a historian
Lynn White delivered some severe claims about the Christian tradition in his
article “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis”.[2]
He argued that the very roots of the ecological crisis lie in the Christian
tradition. White’s first point is that
theology has separated humankind from the rest of creation, and put humans on
top of the hierarchy. Secondly, a similar separation can also be found between
humanity and God, and the third claim is that theology has given the West an
instrumental conception of nature. Because of the authoritative position that
Christian theology has enjoyed in Western history, these three main ideas have
shaped the Western mind towards a dangerous conception of nature.[3]
To put it simple, today’s ecological disasters is the final outcome of these
Christian ideas. Lynn White’s influence is far and wide. We cannot afford to
give any more reasons to detractors of Christianity. We have to correct our
existing theologies, if necessary.
2. Loving our Neighbors and the World
Needs It. Christians
are called to love ‘the World.’ We know now that the present developmental and
economic practices have virtually depleted the earth. We suffer its results in
the form of global warming, the rise of sea-level, and change in climatic
conditions. This is detrimental for the human race. If we are to love the world
and the earth, it is our responsibility to protect it, sustain it and heal it.
Christians should not love only lost souls, but also the world in which they
live. For we remember that God so loved ‘the World’ that he gave what he valued
most- his only Son.
3. The Task of Evangelism Requires It. Our
understanding of evangelism is often too narrow, as such it usually come short
of making any significant impact socially. This is because we tend to think
that preaching and counseling is all evangelism takes. No. The foundation of
evangelism is loving others. Our brothers and sisters in the community, and
also people of other convictions. Loving others would again imply wanting the
best for them, doing what is good for them, for their present and future. This
is the key. This is what the task of evangelism requires of us. If we are
really burdened with the evangelization of Manipur, then we do well to love the
state and people of Manipur – present and future. Toward this end, ecological
concern is one of the prominent names of the game.
Ecological Theology before Modernity
Contrary to some people’s observation, Christian
tradition is not completely quiet in the quest for a theology of nature. There
are some “historical
roots”
to be discovered for an ecological theology. Way back in the 9th century, John
Scotus Eriugena created a Christian philosophy of nature, far from our
ecological situation and very different from White’s account of Christianity.
In some aspects he may be considered a 1200-year-old forerunner of
deep-ecology. In his main work De
Divisione Naturæ he says that nature is not a world apart from humanity and
God. ‘God
is revealed through animals, mountains, plants – being the essence of creation.
Creation is in fact a multitude of theophanies
(appearances of God). Not in the sense that a tree is God, or that a stone is
God, because the oneness of God overflows both particular things and the visible
world as a whole. Christ functions as the mediator of creation, it is through
Him that creation flows from God into every particular being. And at the end of
the times, the whole creation will flow back again the same way, through Christ
into the oneness of God. It must be pointed out that this Christian philosophy
of nature can serve as a reminder today, as a correction of modernity’s use and misuse of nature.
St. Francis of
Assisi (1181-1226) is considered the ‘Patron Saint of Creation’. Perhaps the most popular sculptured image of Francis of
Assisi is that of the bearded little man standing on a birdbath. Francis was in
awe of the swallow, the cricket and the wolf. “Where the modern cynic sees
something ‘buglike’ in everything that exists,” observed the German
writer-philosopher Max Scheler, “St. Francis saw even in a bug the sacredness
of life.” St. Francis helps us to recognize that the world of God and the world
of nature are one. Francis did not build an artificial wall between the natural
world and the supernatural, the secular and the sacred. For Francis, every creature was
sacred. The world in which he lived was not something evil to be rejected but a
sacred ladder by which he could ascend to his Creator. Francis would say that
the birds coming to the birdbath are holy; water is holy.
Some bishops of the United States
published a document in 1992 entitled Renewing
the Earth. In it the bishops praised St. Francis while reminding their
readers: “Safeguarding creation requires us to live responsibly in it, rather
than managing creation as though we are outside it.” We should see ourselves,
they added, as stewards within creation, not as separated from it. Francis was
ahead of his time. He saw himself, like today’s environmentalists, as part of
the ecosystem, not as a proud master over and above it. St. Francis of Assisi
addressed creatures as “sisters” and “brothers,” that is, as equals, not as
subjects to be dominated. Pope John Paul II proclaimed St. Francis of Assisi
the patron of ecology in 1979. The pope cited him for being “an example of
genuine and deep respect for the integrity of creation.... His ‘Canticle of the
Creatures’ says it all -
Canticle
of the Creatures
All praise be yours, My Lord,
through all that you have made.
And first my lord Brother Sun, who
brings the day....
How beautiful is he, how radiant
in all his splendor!
Of you, Most High, he bears the
likeness.
All praise be yours, my Lord,
through Sister Moon and Stars;
In the heavens you have made them,
bright and precious and fair.
All praise be yours, my Lord,
through Brothers Wind and Air....
All praise be yours, my Lord,
through Sister Water,
So useful, lowly, precious and
pure.
All praise be yours, my Lord,
through Brother Fire,
through whom you brighten up the
night....
All praise be yours, my Lord,
through Sister Earth, our mother,
Who feeds us...and produces
various fruits
With colored flowers and herbs....
Praise and bless my Lord, and give
him thanks,
And serve him with great humility.
Some Contemporary Theological Attempts
Theologians
could not remain indifferent after Lynn White’s essay was published in 1967.
White had caught contemporary theology unprepared. Almost no contemporary
theologian had a focus on ecology.[4]
The ensuing debate triggered a lot of theological work in the years that
followed, and the term Ecological Theology soon appeared. Let us consider three
of them:
Covenant Theology
Covenant
theology is closely linked with the name of the Reformed pastor and scholar
Paul Santmire. In his work Brother Earth:
Nature, God and Ecology in Time of Crisis (1970), he argues that
theological ethics has too narrow a definition. It only concerns humanity,
while there is a need for an ethics of nature. His starting point is the ‘Kingdom
of God’, and he considers nature a member of the “divine society.” All peaceful societies need rules to live by
and regulations for their interactions. If we do not have some kind of a
covenant between humankind and nature, we will not be able to live peacefully
with the nature. In the Kingdom of God we have to recognize the rules we have
to live by; sustainable development and reductions of pollution, consumption
and of the living standards of the West.
Process Theology
Process
theology is, above all, characterized by its emphasis of relations: no one and
nothing lives by themselves, not even God! Relations are fundamental for all
kinds of life, and therefore we have to protect and nourish our relations.
Applied to ecology, this means that we have to care for our relationship with
nature. Here is the link to so-called deep-ecology, which stresses the
fundamental oneness of all things. If everything really is one through the web
of relations, then even the smallest particles gain value from the mere fact
that they exist. We must also act according to this value. This
brings us to another point of process theology, namely the dynamic character of
creation. There is a possibility in everything to develop and realise itself.
This is not only a feature of human beings, but of all existent things down to
the smallest proton. In other words, we should look after nature to safeguard
its ability to develop according to its own lines. One of the main figures of
Process theology is John Cobb.
Feminist Theology
Feminist
theology is a third branch of modern theology that has proved fruitful in
connection to ecology. An important contribution is Sally McFague’s book Models of God: Theology for an Ecological
Nuclear Age (1987). A common feature of this kind of theology is the claim
that male dominance is connected to many destructive elements in our culture,
the ecological crisis being one of them. There is a special relation between women
and nature, since they both are, and have been for ages, exposed to male
oppression.
Experiences
of oneness between women and nature call for a special feminist concern with
nature. Through experiences of and in nature we realise our dependence on it,
which in turn reveals an ethical demand to care for nature. Even if this is a
feminist perspective of nature, it does not concern only women. Feminist
theologians think that men can learn from women to search for and discover
similar experiences, and this aspect gives feminist ecological theology a
universal appeal.
Biblical Perspectives[5]
The biblical approach to the environmental issue is
to ask this basic question: “To whom does the earth belong?” The first answer
is straightforward. It is given in Psalms 24:1: “The earth is the LORD’s, and
everything in it,” God is its Creator, and so by right of creation is also its
owner. But this is only a partial answer. Here is Psalm 115: 16: “The highest
heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to man.” So then, “The
balanced biblical answer to our question is that the earth belongs to both God
and man – to God because he made it, to us because he has given it to us. Not,
of course, that he has handed it over to us so completely as to retain neither rights
nor control over it, but he has given it to us to rule on his behalf,” says
Evangelical Statesman John Stott, “Our possession of the earth is leasehold,
therefore, not freehold.”[6] We
are only tenants; God himself remains (in the most literal sense) the
“landlord”, the Lord of all the land. Let us look at three affirmations on the
basis of the Bible.
Dominion
over the earth
God has
given human beings dominion over the earth. We read in Genesis 1:26, “Let us
make man in our image” and “let them have dominion over the earth” (RSV). We
note also the two divine actions in which his resolves were expressed: “So God
created man in his own image” and “God….said to them, ‘…fill the earth and
subdue it’” (vv. 27, 28). Thus from the beginning human beings have been
endowed with a double uniqueness: we bear the image of God (consisting of rational,
moral, social and spiritual qualities which make it possible for us to know
God) and we wield dominion over the earth and its creatures.
Our
unique dominion over the earth is due to our unique relation with God. God
arranged an order, even a hierarchy, of creation. He set human beings midway
between himself as Creator and the rest of the creation, animate and inanimate.
In some ways we are one with the rest of nature, being a part of it and having
the status of creatures. In other ways we are distinct from nature, having been
created in God’s image and given dominion. Biologically, we are like the
animals. But we also enjoy a higher level of experience, in which we are unlike
the animals and like God: we are able to think, choose, create, love, pray and
exercise dominion. This is our intermediate position between God and nature,
between the Creator and the rest of his creation. We combine dependence on God
with dominion over the earth.
Cooperation
with the earth
Our
dominion is cooperative dominion. In exercising our God-given dominion, we are
not creating the processes of nature, but cooperating with them. It is clear
from Genesis 1 that the earth was made fruitful before man was told to fill and
subdue it. It is true that we can make the earth more fruitful. We can clear,
plough, irrigate and enrich the soil. We can put plants under glass to catch
more of the sun. We can manage the soil by rotating our crops. We can improve
our stocks by selective breeding. We can produce hybrid grains with a fantastic
yield. We can mechanize our reaping and threshing by using huge combine
harvesters. But in all these activities we are merely cooperating with the laws
of fruitfulness which God has already established. Moreover, the “painful toil”
which we experience in agriculture, because of God’s “curse” upon the ground
(Genesis 3:17), only modifies and does not override our continuing care of the
soil under God’s “blessing” (Psalm 65:9ff). It is true that God humbled himself
to need our cooperation. But we too must humble ourselves to acknowledge that
our dominion over nature would be entirely fruitless if God had not made the
earth fruitful, and if he did not continue to “give the increase”.
Entrusted
with the earth
Our
dominion is delegated and, therefore, a responsible dominion. That is, the
dominion we exercise over the earth does not belong to us by right, but only by
favour. The earth “belongs” to us not because we made or own it, but because
its Maker has entrusted its care to us. This has important consequences. If we
think of the earth as a kingdom, then we are not kings ruling our own
territory, but viceroys ruling it on the king’s behalf, since the king has not
abdicated his throne. Or if we think of the earth as a paddy field, then we are
not landowners, but the ploughmen who manage and farm it on the owner’s behalf.
God makes us, in the most literal sense, “caretakers” of his property.
If,
therefore, our dominion over the earth has been delegated to us by God, with a
view to our cooperating with him and sharing its produce with others, then we
are accountable to him for our stewardship. We have no liberty to do what we
like with our natural environment; it is not ours to treat as we please. “Dominion” [7] is
not a synonym for “domination”, let alone “destruction”. Since we hold it in
trust, we have to manage it responsibly and productively for the sake of both
our own and subsequent generations.
This
ecological crisis is a man-made crisis and the solutions have to come from him.
This calls for a sense of responsibility on his part towards the Creator (who
put him in-charge), towards his fellow beings (whom he is to love), and towards
creation (in which he is a part).
Some Practical Suggestions
We
have learnt that taking care of our environment is our human and Christian
responsibility. The earth is the only place where we can live and the only
place where we can rear our children, and they themselves rear their own children
in the future as well. Let me attempt some easy practical suggestions:
1. Promote and
recommend recycling.
Make a choice between plastic and paper. Plastic is very hard to recycle. Use
your own Shopping bag instead of getting tons of plastic bags from the grocery
shops.
2. Make advantage of
paying your bills through online,
if and when it is possible. Do not take paper ATM receipts (or unnecessary
cash-memo), and print your materials on both sides of the paper.
3. Use minimum fuel. Walk or cycle to the nearest
destination instead of using your car or bike. By doing so, you contribute your
bit in saving the earth from pollution. And also walking is good for your
health.
4. Save money
and energy by using energy saving light bulbs (eg. CFL or LED bulbs). The
electricity consumed by this is upto 80% less than the standard bulbs, and
produce the same amount of light.
5. Minimize
electricity use. Make sure you unplug electrical appliances, and switch off
lights which are not in use.
6. Promote
plantation. Trees
cool down temperature and purify air. It absorbs Carbon Dioxide and gives out
Oxygen. If have not plant any tree, you are 20 years too late.
7. Water
conservation is important.
Check for hidden water leaks. Take shorter showers. Turn off the tap, when not
in use. Use washing machine only for full load. Knowing how to save water can
help you protect both the Earth and save money.
8. Broaden
your Outlook. Try to grasp the big picture of global issues, like, Population
growth, Depletion of Earth’s resource, Reduction in biodiversity, Waste
disposal, and Climate change.
Conclusion
The
church has so far been minimally vocal on environmental issues and only very
recently Christians have become aware of these problems. Christians should
speak out against environmental degradation/abuses and also reach out to those
who have become victims of environmental disasters. So far, issues concerning
the environment have not been considered ‘spiritual’ and hence the hesitation
to speak out. We need a, “…theology which is at once, cosmology and
Christology, creation theology which at the same time is soteriology, a
holistic theology and worldview that avoids all dichotomy and fragmentations,”
as suggested by Samuel Rayan in his important essay, “Theological Perspective
on Environment Crisis”.[8]
We
should be aware that whatever we do today affects the future generations. We
need to think in terms of long term planning. As responsible Christians, we
should be agents of change in greening our planet. In the past, Christians have
instinctively been concerned about great and urgent issues in every
generation…These have included the evils of disease, ignorance, slavery, and
many other forms of brutality and exploitation. Christians have taken up the cause
of widows, orphans, refugees, prisoners, the insane, the hungry – and most
recently have swelled the numbers of those committed in ‘making poverty
history’. Now is the time for environmental concern. I close with Christ
Wright’s thought-provoking words: “It seems quite inexplicable to me that there
are some Christians who claim to love and worship God, to be disciples of
Jesus, and yet have no concerns for the earth that bears his stamp of
ownership. They do not care about the abuse of the earth and indeed, by their
wasteful and over-consumptive life-styles, they collude it….God intends…our
care of the creation to reflect our love for the Creator.”[9]
-----------------------
Discussion Points
1. In which position should
‘ecological concern’ be placed in the mission agenda of the MPYF or the Church
as a whole?
2. How far is your understanding of
Salvation or Evangelization connected to the Care of Creation?
3. Share and suggest some more
practical ways by which we can show our love and care of God’s creation, and
that we are ecologically conscious.
*****RE262013*****
[1] Gregory D. Cusack, "The
Rural Crisis and the Theology of Land." Epiphany, 8 (1987) 1, 50.
[2] Science, 1967, 1303-1307. online
source.
[3] Halvard Jahannesen counters
Lynn White’s theses denying that his three claims about Christianity are not
novel features of Christianity, for - the gaps that separate the individual
from the world and from God, are important features of modern philosophy rather
than Christian theology per se. This
and other dangerous ideas in Christianity, ecologically speaking, first
appeared in the 17th century after the mechanistic view of the nature developed
with full force with thinkers like Marsenne and Descartes, whose philosophy had
lost its ties with theology. For the first time Europe now looked upon nature
as a machine, and seemingly abandoned by God it could for the first time serve
only human purposes. Some of the theological ideas that White criticized were
developed mainly after this mechanistic philosophy and science had developed
and, more importantly, after theology had been influenced by these
developments. (“Learning to Care: Theology and the Ecological Crisis,” online source).
[4]
Johannesen, 20.
[5] I bank heavily on John Stott
for this portion of the argument.
[6] John Stott, Issues Facing Christians Today, 4th
Edition, Fully Revised and Updated by Roy McCloughry (Mumbai: GLS, 2011), 146,
See also, Genesis 1: 10-28.
[7]
S.C. Daniel contends that the term ‘dominion’ here denotes a ‘territorial
magnate’ rather than a ‘despot’ with unlimited power. See, S.C. Daniel, “A
Christian’s Responsibility for Nature: A Biblical Perspective,” Religion and Society, Vol. 42, No. 3,
September 1995, 92.
[8] Samuel Rayan, “Theological
Perspective on Environmental Crisis, “ in Frontiers
in Asian Christian Theology, edited by R.S. Sugirtharajah (Maryknoll: Orbis
Books, 1994), 109.
[9] As quoted by John Stott in, The Radical Disciple (London: IVP,
2010), 65.
Comments
Post a Comment