Today, I am feeling overwhelmed by the continual intransigence of world governments in response to the Climate Crisis now impacting our planet. Then I remembered this essay that I wrote last year (2018) as an assessment task for my THL326 Theological Ethics Unit at St Mark’s National Theological College in Canberra. I offer it here, with all its imperfections, in the vague hope it might transformative to someone, somewhere.
In October 2018, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report which
outlined the benefits to both human society and the natural environment of
limiting global warming to 1.5°C. The report noted that to realistically
achieve this goal, however, would require not only significant technological
innovation, policy change and investment in mitigation, but also the need for
individual and societal behavioral change.[1]
In other words, the Panel identified that addressing climate change requires
not only pragmatic, economic and political responses, but the need for a
transformation of individual and social moral imaginations. This essay seeks to
explore what contribution, if any, Christian theology might make to such a
moral transformation. Firstly, I will critique the impact that the concept of
‘dominion’ has had a detrimental effect on the ecology throughout the modern
era, before identifying a more helpful theological basis for environmental care
grounded in the overarching narrative of Scripture. Then, having demonstrated
how the redemptive metanarrative of Christian theology demonstrates God’s
loving intent toward the whole of creation, I will examine the impact this
theology may have on the contemporary ethical response to anthropocentric climate
change. Thus, this essay will argue that Christian theology provides a
narrative framework for understanding and responding to current ecological
crises.
God blessed them, and God said to
them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have
dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every
living thing that moves upon the earth.’[2]
A significant area of debate in
ecological ethics revolves around whether in fact Christian theology has
anything to contribute to environmental care. Indeed, many secular ecologists
argue that the Christian faith is intrinsically anthropocentric and thus
inherently exploitative of the world.[3]
At the centre of any such debate, one encounters Lynn White’s seminal work ‘The
Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis.’ White, a Christian himself,
famously argued that the intellectual origins for the mechanistic and
utilitarian approach to creation that undergirds much of modern Western society
lie not in the industrial revolution, but in late medieval theology.[4]
In particular, White identified two theological foundations for modern
ecological destruction: a transcendent nominalism which viewed the creator God
as somehow ‘outside’ of creation; and the related emphasis on the human race’s
God-given dominion over the earth, as found in Genesis 1.28.[5]
In other words, the perception that God was somehow distant from the created
order left the material world without any intrinsic moral value, but rather
defined creation only in terms of its benefit to humanity.[6]
Or, as Keith Carley puts it, ‘when heaven is God’s abode, Earth is devalued.’[7]
Yet, whilst important, White’s
contribution to the theology of ecological ethics requires some qualification.
Indeed, even as White has received significant support from secular ecologists,
many Christian writers have provided important critiques of his arguments. For
example, Lewis Moncrief does not deny an influence of Christian thought on the
materialistic consumption of modern Western society, but rather frames such
theology as only one of many ‘cultural variables’ that impacted on its
development.[8]
Others, such as Keith Thomas, deny that Christian theology had any significant
influence, instead arguing that economic drivers formed the true foundation for
environmental exploitation.[9]
Most seem to end up somewhere in the middle: accepting that an anthropocentric
nominalist theology likely had some impact on the current environmental crises
of the world, without being able to specify exactly how.[10]
For
my part, I strongly agree with David Livingstone that:
Insofar as Christian theology has failed to take with sufficient seriousness a concern for the environment, and indeed insofar as the Church has been complicit in practices resulting in ecological destruction, it must accept its fair share of the blame for botching up the world. We must beware of substituting irritation at Christianity’s critics for serious self-criticism.[11]
That said, the idea that Christian
theology is intrinsically utilitarian demonstrates a severe lack of
understanding of the overall arch of the biblical narrative.
Even amongst those scholars who
accept, to whatever degree, White’s criticism of Christianity’s impact upon the
environment, debate exists as to whether such influence represents a valid or
perverted interpretation of Scripture. For example, reflecting the latter
position, Young Seok Cha argues that whilst the term radah (translated
as ‘have dominion’ in the NRSV, Gen. 1.28) elsewhere carries connotations of
kingly power (i.e. Num. 24.19), true dominion belongs to God with humans only
exercising a delegated, representative authority.[12]
Consequently, he argues that ‘humans were supposed to reflect God’s love and
justice in taking care of creation.’[13]
In contrast, Carley notes that the other verb found in Genesis 1.28, kavash
(‘to subdue it’), is elsewhere used in Scripture to refer to forcing people
into slavery (Neh. 5.5.); rape (Est. 7.8); and, the subjugation of entire
peoples (2 Sam. 8.11).[14]
In other words, this passage of Genesis does seem to have intentionally violent
connotations; and, as Carley argues ‘subjection is subjection however much it
is qualified.’[15]
Yet, even if this passage does refer
to the domination of creation by humans, rather than a benevolent stewardship
as theologians like Young suggest, that alone does not form an adequate ethical
foundation for the ecological exploitation of the modern era. For, as this
essay will explore shortly, the overall narrative of Scripture points to God’s
caring intent toward the created order, and humanity’s part in that. Indeed,
even by turning to the very next chapter of Genesis, one encounters a
fundamental challenge to such an assumption as, in the words of Jione Havea,
while ‘the first story authorizes humans to be in charge and to dominate […]
the second story obliges humans to labour and to serve the ground.’[16]
Instead, what makes Genesis 1.28 helpful to a Christian environmental ethic is
its acknowledgement that humans have the capacity to reshape and reorder
creation (for good and for bad) in a way that no other species has.[17]
Thus, the paradox of humanity is that we are the most powerful creatures on the
planet, whilst remaining dependent on, and intimately connected to it.[18]
This will become significant later as I examine the subject of anthropogenic
climate change.
For the creation was subjected to
futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in
hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and
will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.[19]
When one shifts focus from the
‘dominion’ passage in isolation, to the overall narrative arch of Scripture, a
very different theology of creation emerges. Firstly, in the rest of the
opening creation story of Genesis, one encounters God’s description of the
created order as ‘good’.[20]
In other words, Scripture presents creation as having a divinely-given
intrinsic value apart from its value to humanity.[21]
Matthew Fox famously refers to this concept as ‘Original Blessing’.[22]
This theocentric approach affirms
that all of creation, including humanity, has intrinsic value as a gift of
God’s grace, for God’s purposes.[23]
This presents an important alternative to the failings of both the
anthropocentric nominalism discussed above (in which only humans have an
intrinsic value), and also to the biocentrism or ecocentrism that undergirds
much of modern secular ecology (which argues that humans are only one creature
of many, without explaining how humans alone can so devastatingly reshape the
natural environment).[24]
Further, where ecocentrism understands human material need and the natural good
to exist inherently in conflict with one another (a fair assumption, given the
ecological destruction to which such an ideology is responding), Christian
theocentrism instead identifies the
human good as ‘directly related to the good of the Creator, and also […] in
direct relational connection with the good of the rest of creation.’[25]
Hence, in passages like Exodus 20.10, God gives commands to humanity which
serve not just their wellbeing, but also that of other parts of the created
order.[26]
Naturally, the question then arises
as to how Christian theology might explain the present ecological crisis: if
humanity and the created order share a common good, why has humanity had such a
devastating impact on the Earth? In fact, part of the answer to this question
rests in the discussion of the dominion passage above: namely, that humanity
has created distance between itself and God, forgetting its rightful place and
purpose. The theological term for this state of separation is sin. It is
noteworthy that many parts of Scripture make an explicit link between human
sinfulness and damage to the wider created order.[27]
For example, in the fall narrative of Genesis 3, God tells the man ‘cursed is
the ground because of you.’[28]
Similarly, the book of Isaiah makes a causal link between the mistreatment of
the poor in Judah with the land’s loss of fertility.[29]
Thus, when people suffer, creation suffers; and when creation suffers, people
suffer. Or, as Mark Lawson argues, ‘all of creation’s health is inexorably tied
to the spiritual well-being of humanity, to whom God has entrusted the care of
creation.’[30]
Yet the narrative arch of Scripture
does not end with sinfulness, but rather redemption and hope. For this reason,
perhaps the most important Christian theological basis for environmental care
resides in the doctrine of the Incarnation.[31]
Firstly, the Incarnation serves as an important balance to the image of a
distant God discussed above: for in the logos ‘becoming flesh’, God uses
the same principle by which God created the world to affirm its ongoing value.[32]
Secondly, Scripture reveals that whilst the life, death and resurrection of
Christ served to redeem a sinful humanity, the purpose of such redemption is
also for the reconciliation of the whole creation that God loves.[33]
For example, in the passage from Romans which serves as the heading for this
section, Paul declares ‘in hope that the creation itself will be set free from
its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children
of God.’[34]
Thus, Christian theology provides an eschatological hope that through the
redemption and transformation of humanity, God vindicates the ‘original
relational ordering of creation’ toward Godself, and thus will restore creation
to harmony and shalom.[35]
Climate Change and Consequences for
Urban Life
Of the many ecological crises facing
the contemporary world, perhaps the most significant is anthropogenic climate
change. The 2018 report from the IPCC
notes that human activities are estimated to have already caused approximately
1°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, and that even if
anthropogenic emissions ceased completely tomorrow, the impact of human
activity since the industrial revolution would continue to have affects for
centuries and millennia to come.[36]
Moreover, whilst the report attempts an optimistic outlook that suggests humans
may still have the ability to limit global warming to 1.5°C (rather than the
2°C at the heart of the Paris Agreement), it acknowledges that even at this
limited level, climate change would have significant impacts on ecosystems;
ocean level and temperature; and health, livelihood, food supply and human
security.[37] In
addition, the West has slowly discovered the devastating impact that climate
change is already having in places like the Pacific, where the island nations
of Tuvalu and Kiribati are facing complete inundation in the next fifty years.[38]
Yet, despite these factors being widely known and understood for at least a
decade, changes in human behavior have proven slow or non-existent: a paralysis
seemingly caused by feelings of despair and being overwhelmed.[39]
Such paralysis appears to have been
particularly acute in urban areas where dense human construction causes a
breakdown in people’s awareness of their interdependence with the natural
environment.[40] This
is unfortunate, particularly given that science acknowledges that wealthy urban
populations have larger carbon footprints than the world’s poor; yet it is the
poor who often suffer the most severe consequences.[41]
Indeed, questions of environmental concern have deep links with questions of
social inequality.[42]
Thus, even the most anthropocentric utilitarian approach to creation would find
itself needing to address the realities of climate change. For Christians, even
if the Earth did not have an intrinsic value, the command to ‘love your
neighbor as yourself’ would still compel urban Christians to evaluate their
practice and behavior.[43]
How much more then must this be the case given that God does love creation?
Thankfully Christian theology
provides a potentially helpful and productive framework for addressing the
challenge of climate change and overcoming human paralysis. Firstly, as
discussed above, the Christian narrative of creation challenges all humans
(including those in urban areas) to acknowledge the ways in which the fate of
both humanity and the created order are intricately linked. Then, the concept
of human sinfulness, and its destructive impact on the shalom of
creation, enables people to recognize and comprehend the way in which their
behavior, individually and collectively, has contributed to the current
ecological crisis. As Claire Dawson and Mick Pope argue, ‘the claim that human
beings are changing the climate due to the burning of fossil fuels is
consistent with a biblical doctrine of human sinfulness.’[44]
Dawson and Pope also contend that this honest confession forms an important
first step in the transformation of people’s attitudes, and consequently their
behaviors.[45] In this,
the approach of Christianity is quite similar to that of secular ecology.
Christian theology, however, contains
two extra features which help overcome the inertia of despair which modern
science has encountered: redemption and eschatology. As already discussed, the
Scriptural narrative does not end with human fallenness, but instead with
Christ’s redemptive work, and an eschatological hope for the reconciliation of
all of creation. Such hope then enables Christians to acknowledge and confess
their complicity in the crisis of global warming, without falling into the
depths of despair. Instead, the Christian narrative invites people into a
process of moral transformation in which, step by step, their behavior begins
to align with God’s loving intention for the world.[46]
As Young explains, ‘even though Christians live in the present world, which is
moving toward destruction, their life should reflect the value of the future
Kingdom.’[47] And,
as those who live in hope of God’s restored shalom, Christians also have
a sense of connectedness in their response to climate change: for rather than
languishing in a sense of ‘what difference could I possibly make,’ Christians
should perceive their small actions as working alongside the rest of creation,
and the very Creator and Redeemer him/herself.
Conclusion
At the start of this essay, I
outlined that the IPCC Report notes that an effective response to anthropogenic
climate change will depend not only on political or economic levers, but on the
transformation of moral imagination and human behavior. Subsequently this essay
explored the destructive theology of ‘dominion’ and the complicity of
Christianity in the current ecological crises of the world. And, ironically, it
is this very practice of hopeful confession which may prove the most
significant contribution that Christian theology can make to contemporary
efforts to address climate change. For, what enables me to admit the harmful
actions of both my religious tradition and I, is the overarching narrative of
Scripture which points to an eschatological hope for redemption, reconciliation
and renewal of the whole of creation. As
this essay has demonstrated, this hope, that God is working to restore the
original shalom of the created order, which human actions have
disturbed, enables Christians to face the realities of climate change without
falling into the paralysis of despair which has defined so much of modern
society’s response to date. Instead, the Christian narrative provides a
theocentric framework which invites individuals and society into a process of moral
transformation and alignment with God’s loving purpose for the whole of
creation, in which we rediscover our true relationship with God and the world
that God loves.
Bibiliography
Cameron,
Andrew J.B. . Joined-up Life: A Christian
account of how ethics works. EBook ed.
Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2011.
Carley,
Keith. “Psalm 8: An Apology for Domination.” In Readings from the Perspective of Earth, edited by Norman C. Habel, 111-24. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2000.
Dawson,
Claire, and Mick Pope. A Climate of Hope:
Church and Mission in a warming world.
Dandenong: UPOH, 2014.
Fox, Matthew.
Original blessing : a primer in creation
spirituality presented in four paths, twenty-six themes, and two questions. Santa Fe, N.M.: Bear, 1983.
Gushee, David
P., and Glen H. Stassen. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in
Contemporary Context. 2nd ed. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2016.
Havea, Jione.
“The Politics of Climate Change: A Talanoa from Oceania.” International Journal of Public Theology 4,
no. 3 (2010): 345-55.
IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5 °C: an IPCC special
report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels
and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of
strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable
development, and efforts to eradicate poverty: Headline Statements. (2018),
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
Lawson, J.
Mark. “Romans 8.18-25 – The Hope of Creation “. Review and Expositor 91 (1994): 559-65.
Livingstone,
David. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis: A
Reassessment.” Fides et Historia :
Official Publication of the Conference on Faith and History 26, no. 1
(1994): 38-55.
Moncrief,
Lewis W. “The Cultural Basis of Our Environmental Crisis.” Science 170, no. 3957 (1970): 508-12.
Northcott,
Michael S. “Ecology and Christian Ethics.” In The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics, edited by Robin Gill,
209-27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Thomas,
Keith. Man and the Natural World:
Changing Attitudes in England, 1500-1800.
London: Penguin Books, 1984.
White Jr.,
Lynn. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” Science 155 (1967): 1203-07.
Young, Seok Cha. “Theological and Ethical Implications of Creation
Care.” The Journal of Applied
Christian Leadership 6, no. 2 (2012): 88-106.
[1] IPCC, Global
Warming of 1.5 °C: an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of
1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission
pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of
climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty:
Headline Statements, (2018), D.5. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/.
[2] Gen.
1.28, NRSV.
[3] J. Mark Lawson, “Romans 8.18-25 – The Hope of
Creation ” Review and Expositor
91 (1994): 559.
[4] Lynn White Jr., “The Historical Roots of Our
Ecological Crisis,” Science 155
(1967): 1203-07.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Michael S. Northcott, “Ecology and Christian
Ethics,” in The Cambridge Companion
to Christian Ethics, ed. Robin Gill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2001), 212.
[7] Keith Carley, “Psalm 8: An Apology for
Domination,” in Readings from the
Perspective of Earth, ed. Norman C.
Habel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 117.
[8] Lewis W. Moncrief, “The Cultural Basis of Our
Environmental Crisis,” Science
170, no. 3957 (1970): 508-12.
[9] Keith Thomas, Man
and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England, 1500-1800 (London:
Penguin Books, 1984).
[10] For
example, see Andrew J.B. Cameron, Joined-up
Life: A Christian account of how ethics works, EBook ed. (Nottingham:
Inter-Varsity Press, 2011), 280.
[11] David Livingstone, “The Historical Roots of Our
Ecological Crisis: A Reassessment,” Fides
et Historia : Official Publication of the Conference on Faith and History
26, no. 1 (1994): 51.
[12] Seok Cha Young, “Theological and Ethical
Implications of Creation Care,” The
Journal of Applied Christian Leadership 6, no. 2 (2012): 90-91.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Carley, “Psalm 8: An Apology for
Domination,” 118.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Jione Havea, “The Politics of Climate Change: A
Talanoa from Oceania,” International
Journal of Public Theology 4, no. 3 (2010): 346.
[17] Cameron, Joined-up
Life: A Christian account of how ethics works, 281.
[18] Ibid.
[19]
Romans 8.20-21, NRSV.
[20] Gen.
1.4, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31.
[21] Young, “Theological and Ethical Implications of
Creation Care,” 98.
[22] Matthew Fox, Original
blessing : a primer in creation spirituality presented in four paths,
twenty-six themes, and two questions (Santa Fe, N.M.: Bear, 1983).
[23] David P. Gushee and Glen H. Stassen, Kingdom
Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans, 2016), 388.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Northcott, “Ecology and Christian Ethics,”
220.
[26] Young, “Theological and Ethical Implications of
Creation Care,” 99.
[27] Northcott, “Ecology and Christian Ethics,”
220-21.
[28] Gen.
3.17, NRSV.
[29] Isa.
5.8-10; 24.1-6. See, Northcott, “Ecology
and Christian Ethics,” 220-21.
[30] Lawson, “Romans 8.18-25 – The Hope of Creation
” 561.
[31] Northcott, “Ecology and Christian Ethics,”
214.
[32] John
1.1-18; see ibid., 211-13.
[33] Gushee and Stassen, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, 390.
[34] Romans
8.20-21, NRSV. See also Hos. 2.18; Eph. 1.10; Col 1.19-20; 2 Cor. 4.11
[35] Northcott, “Ecology and Christian Ethics,”
214-15.
[36] IPCC, Global
Warming of 1.5 °C: an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of
1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission
pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of
climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty:
Headline Statements, A.1, A.2
[37] Ibid., B.1-B.5.
[38] Havea, “The Politics of Climate Change: A Talanoa
from Oceania,” 352.
[39] Claire Dawson and Mick Pope, A Climate of Hope: Church and Mission in a warming world
(Dandenong: UPOH, 2014), 244.
[40] Cameron, Joined-up
Life: A Christian account of how ethics works, 279.
[41] Havea, “The Politics of Climate Change: A Talanoa
from Oceania,” 352.
[42] Northcott, “Ecology and Christian Ethics,”
220-22.
[43] Mark
12.31, NRSV.
[44] Dawson and Pope, A
Climate of Hope: Church and Mission in a warming world, 67.
[45] Ibid., 240.
[46]
Here, it is important to acknowledge that while some premillennialist
eschatologies have been used to deny the need to act on climate change (arguing
that God’s promise for future restoration forgoes the need to fix the current
world), this is inconsistent with the overarching themes of Scripture
identified elsewhere in this essay. See, Young,
“Theological and Ethical Implications of Creation Care,” 91-92.
[47] Ibid.
Old Wine in New Skin 