Kruse Kronicle

What Do We Really Mean by Environmentalism?

—

by

mwkruse
in , ,

Christianity Today recently published an editorial about creation care. Noting a biblical warrant for the exercise of creation care, they encourage readers to embrace environmental stewardship as part of their Christian witness. They decry those who minimize our concern for creation.

This leads me to some interesting questions I've wanted to post on this blog for some time. I'm going to play devil's advocate here. I'm not subscribing to all the following but attempting to press at some difficult issues.

The earth is billions of years old. Life is at least a billion years old. Throughout eons, we have seen multiple massive changes to the earth's climate. We have seen the rise and fall of many different species and ecosystems, sometimes with stunning abruptness. The climate and ecosystem seem stable only from the exceedingly narrow sliver of human experience.

Therefore, why is this particular climate and ecosystem sacred? Concerning the recent Gulf of Mexico leak, the article says, "But worse is this: A sea hemorrhaging black oil now suffocates life instead of nurturing it. The sea does not resound with the glory of God but instead has become a sign of human hubris and greed." When God allows an asteroid to slam into the earth, wiping out a global ecosystem or allowing a massive volcano to send clouds of ash that destroy ecosystems across huge regions, what is this? Are these events evidence of God's resounding glory, or are they something else? Why are our occasional missteps with damaging the ecosystem so heinous by comparison? Why is this ecosystem so sacred from all the others God has created and destroyed?

To press a little further. Can it be said that ecosystems really aren't that sacred? If the ecosystem changed significantly, it would be a major challenge for us, even a threat to OUR survival. In that case, isn't environmentalism, at its core, really all about us … we see ourselves as sacred, and so the environment that gives us life is extended to a sacred aura as well?

Do you agree? How would you answer this perspective?

Comments

7 responses to “What Do We Really Mean by Environmentalism?”

  1. Dan Anderson-Little Avatar
    Dan Anderson-Little

    Mike,
    As usual, you have done your great job of pushing beyond easy (and all too frequently unexamined) rhetoric. I don’t have a fully formed response, but let me try out a couple of thoughts. You are absolutely right about the enormous swings in climate and ecosystems in the earth’s history. We have been cosmic snowball (on a number of occasions) and we have been a very hot, greenhouse of a planet. Oxygen levels have gone up and down–sometimes so high that humans would find the atmosphere toxic. So in terms of climate change, yes, this is nothing new. What is new is that this is the first time that there is significant evidence that climate change is largely driven by human activity rather than the earth’s own cycles or some extraterrestrial cataclysmic event. And while we can’t stop asteroids (well, maybe Bruce Willis can), we can control our behavior that is sickening the earth right now. In Genesis God commands us to have dominion over the earth which I take to mean both use it (grow crops, raise animals, hunt, extract raw materials to make things) and take care of it. So if we are doing something that is sickening the earth and its creatures, then I think we have a mandate from God to examine our behavior and change it. Yes, in a million years (give or take a few hundred thousand) the Yellowstone Caldera will blow up and with it everything up to at least Kansas City (if not much further) will be flattened–unless a big asteroid hits us first. Then we will have some pretty significant climate change! That is true. However, that is also in some far off time. We are living here and now and we have a responsibility to the here and now. Anthropogenic global warming threatens all kinds of things here and now–rising sea levels will threaten millions, if not billions of people. The extinction of species will accelerate. And sure, sometime in the future most species will be wiped out, but for me this is sort of like the eschaton–it’s coming, but don’t cancel your life insurance just yet.
    So the question for me is not “Is an eco-system” sacred?” but “Is creation sacred?” I answer that second question in the affirmative and so I understand myself to be called to care for it as best I can. That means caring both for the creatures of the earth (with a special emphasis on humans) and for the planet and its ecosystems that make life possible and pleasant for those creatures. Someday the earth will inhospitable to human life. I would rather it not be us who render it that way.
    As I say, this is me thinking out loud–which is why I keep coming back to you site–it makes me think! Thanks.
    Dan

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Good stuff Dan, thanks.
    I keep coming the fact that, ala John Walton, Gen 1 seems to be a “building the temple narrative.” God forms creation as his temple and creates humanity to be the functionaries within the temple. There is a sense in which God has brought it to this present state (the past several thousand years) for the introduction of human functionaries. The mandate is to work the temple and bring it to is fullness.
    So creation has value because God has a purpose for it and humanity is part of that purpose. It is neither destruction nor pristine preservation but loving creation we are invited into. Prior events and what may one day become of the earth are not known but these are the resources we have been given stewardship over here and now. Who knows what stewardship will look like in an eternal sense but we are called to live it here and now in this context.
    I’m no sure I’m saying this well, but it is something I’m thinking about.

    Reply
  3. codepoke Avatar
    codepoke

    When one little boy slaps another for no reason, it’s the order of things. When the child’s Nanny does the same thing it’s a cataclysmic upset of the order of things. When a volcano erupts in the ocean killing untold life it’s not comparable to God’s keepers doing a similar thing.
    The difference, as you say, is love and the lack thereof from those with every reason and responsibility to love.

    Reply
  4. Travis Greene Avatar
    Travis Greene

    We’re all going to die one day. That doesn’t mean murder is fine.
    All our stuff will eventually crumble into dust. That doesn’t mean it’s okay for me to burn down your house.
    Most species have changed and will change. Many will die. Doesn’t mean we get off scot-free for helping that process along.
    Now, I agree that pristine “world without humanity” type environmentalism is not the goal. But there is a big difference between a responsible agriculture that learns to thrive off nature’s bounty, and wantonly burning down other species’ habitats so we can grow more cocaine.

    Reply
  5. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Travis, that is a helpful analogy. I’d still press the issue further.
    The ANE world did not have the notion of a radically ancient world. The world was formed at some point in the past in its present state and has been maintained by the gods in this state ever since. We now know that is not the earth’s history.
    So why should this particular configuration of eco-systems be of greater value than all the others God created in the past? How do we move from ANE genres of Genesis 1-11 (based in a steady state earth) to what we know today? We are not exercising stewardship over a steady state world but a constantly changing world that we arrived in at a particular point in time. Why is the present material order worthy of our concern?

    Reply
  6. JMorrow Avatar
    JMorrow

    This conversation reminds me of a line from George Carlin, ever the cynical humorist who when musing on the “Save the Earth” movement of the 90s said something to the effect: “the earth will be fine, it’ll keep spinning around the sun, humans on the other hand…”
    As much as I agree with Carlin in principal, that much of our environmental movement is humanistic in orientation, its worth noting that we too are creatures of the dust. We are not simply alien intruders upon a natural landscape. Humans are apart of the very ecosystems or the greater creation that God has allowed to exist. So from one perspective it is human beings and our consciousness that gives sacred meaning to God’s creation.
    This won’t answer the question of why one particular ecosystem is more preferable or more sacred than another, but it should make us pause as we discern that question. As well, the fact that creation often takes eons and incredible power to produce should make us pause before we alter it in a matter of moments or years. I really think sacredness is connected to humility, wonder and ignorance. God’s speech in the book of Job lists creatures that had little or no practical use for human beings at the time of its writing. In that sense, I hear the Spirit telling us that the worth of creation, as with any human being within it, cannot be measured alone by the knowledge we have before us. That value can only be known fully by God.
    Lastly, nature is not always a kind mother. The Bible, particularly in the stories of Torah makes note of famines, and attacks of natural phenomena that bring suffering upon human life. It is that reality that moves human communities to alter our environment in the first place in pursuit of a higher quality of life.
    So understanding how sacred an ecosystem is becomes a complex question, with evidence weighing in on both sides. I’m not sure if its the right one though. Wouldn’t we rather ask what God’s purposes for us in the context of our environment might be instead of trying to ascertain the objective worth of ecosystem? And how might our environmental actions disrupt what God has been patiently, diligently doing with us already?

    Reply
  7. Christy Bakker Avatar
    Christy Bakker

    To me the question isn’t what is sacred and what is not… The most important thing is obedience to God. And God said, “Take care of the creation.” Period.
    Simplistic? Yes. Profound challenge? Yes!

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Dan Anderson-LittleCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading