November 30, 1989

Secular society seems to be more concerned about the present environmental crisis than Christian society. Some secular scientists blame Christianity for the crisis. Can this be? Doesn't the Christian faith espouse and appropriate theology of the creation? It is true that many Christians seem to have lost an environmental ethic. How can it be regained?

Evidences that secular society seems more concerned about environmental issues include the following:

I am a member of several secular environmental organizations. They are growing rapidly. They provide excellent resources for study and interpretation of the issues. They have money.

I also belong to several organizations made up only of Christian environmentalists -- the North American Conference on Christianity and Ecology (NACCE, 1985) and the Eco-Justice Working Group (EJWG, 1980). The NACCE is grass roots and ecumenical and advocates that every Christian be an ecologist. The EJWG is composed mostly of mainline denominational staff workers affiliated with the National Council of Churches in America.

Both Christian groups are struggling to survive. They get very little support -- moral or financial -- from the churches. The resources they can provide to individuals and churches are thus quite limited. Until they are supported more enthusiastically by the Christian community, they will not be able to compete with secular environmental groups.

Another evidence of Christian apathy toward environmentalism is the American church's failure to become much involved in the worldwide Justice, Peace and Integrity of the Creation (JPIC) program. The JPIC program recommended that each Christian denomination study the portions of their theology relevant to the environmental crisis and bring a report of their findings to a meeting in Seoul, Korea for sharing and discussion. Very few U.S. denominations have participated. Why?

I have observed that while many Mennonites are generally pro-environment, they are often not encouraged by the church to make it a faith priority. Some congregational peace and social concerns committees do promote environmental issues, but it is hard to find an overwhelming concern about the environmental crisis among many Christians.

Can it be true that Christianity itself has been responsible for some of the environmental crisis? Some secular environmentalists and Christian critics say yes.

In his essay, "The Wild Places," from Preview of the Asian Journey (Walter Capps, ed., Crossroad Publishers, 1989), Thomas Merton discusses the above issue. He says bluntly,T"the ambivalence (of Christians) toward nature is rooted in our biblical Judeo-Christian tradition." He refers to the attitudes of early Puritans as an example of the perceived Christian license to conquer the natural world. They were the first Americans with a "frontier mentality," one which has not completely left us. Merton puts it this way, "The elementary Christian duty of the Puritan settlers was to combat, reduce, destroy, and transform the wilderness. This was God's work."

Lynn White Jr., an ecologist, in a now well-known essay "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis" (Scientific American, 1968) contends that modern science and technology, which are responsible for so much environmental degradation, historically was blessed by Christianity. Science arose from "natural philosophy" which was taught in Christian schools. White says, "As we now recognize, somewhat over a century ago science and technology -- hither-to quite separate acitivities -- joined to give mankind powers which, to judge by many of the ecologic effects, are out of control. If so, Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt."

Wesley Granberg-Michaelson describes the charges by secular environmentalists against Christianity in the book A Worldly Spirituality (Harper and Row, 1984). He writes, "Historians, philosophers and environmentalists appear to have the arguments of history on their side when they charge that Christianity is the chief culprit in motivating and justifying the ruin of the earth."

Granberg-Michaelson describes these arguments in four points:

1) "The Genesis 1:28 command for humanity to have 'dominion' and subdue the earth sets humanity apart from nature and directs humanity to conquer and exploit it." This is the view that nature in itself has little value except as it is useful to humankind. It's the view that many Mennonites adopted in the New World. The Mennonite view of the natural world was verbalized pretty well by theologian Milo Kauffman in his 1955 book The Challenge of Christian Stewardship (Herald Press). Notice his interpretation of "dominion" in this passage: "He (God) filled the earth with natural resources that could be developed, and with the potential energy and power that could be secured from animals, waterfalls electricity, steam, petroleum and the atom... But God needed some beings with intelligence and wisdom to whom he could entrust His creation with its limitless supplies of raw materials, some being who could honor Him by having dominion and developing these natural resources... God wanted man to be His partne r in developing and using the limitless raw materials and natural resources ... what great possibilities lay before man! Limitless power! Limitless wealth!"

Happily our brother Kauffman modified his views of unlimited resources by 1975 in his book Stewards of God (Herald Press). Here he devotes a whole chapter to stewardship of the creation and the environmental crisis. He now says, "Christians have had a faulty theology ... and it is a mistake to think that the resources of our planet are limitless... If man is to survive on planet earth he must quickly and earnestly respond to the challenge of stewardship of the earth."

Hopefully many of Kauffman's brothers and sisters in the faith have followed his exhortations. Unfortunately, few other Mennonite ministers picked up on his new interpretations.

2) Granberg-Michaelson's second point is: "Modern science and technology have been enthusiastically blessed by Christianity in their unbridled conquest of nature." (pp. 31, 32) Who can deny this as we have previously seen from Lynn White's comments?

3) The third point "accuses Christianity of promoting a dualism between the spiritual and the material making the things of this earth of little importance or even regarding them as evil." (p. 32) This idea is illustrated in such gospel songs as "This world is not my home, I'm just passing through," etc.

4) The fourth point in the charge against Christianity according to Granberg-Michaelson is "that the belief in the Second Coming, which will usher in God's total reign, negates any reason to improve or even preserve the world until then."

I think that the serious charges above have some validity. At the same time, they can all be refuted by a new (or rediscovered) theological interpretation of the scriptures pertaining to the created order. So it's not that a reliable creation theology is lacking in Christianity, only that it's been neglected and misinterpreted. Thus many Christian traditions, including our own, have largely lost an appropriate environmental ethic and deserve to be castigated by secular environmentalists. The challenge now is: "Are we willing to change?"

For Mennonites, Kauffman is one who has demonstrated the kind of willingness to reinterpret creation theology scriptures in order to develop an environmental ethic. Kauffman includes these elements as essential parts of an appropriate creation theology (p. 109ff, edited):

• God is infinite and sovereign. He is therefore unique and above man and other creatures. He is Creator, Sustainer and Redeemer. He is a personal God, yet present in his creation.

• Man is a finite being, like other of God's creatures. But man was created in God's image and can relate to God. Man is above the other creatures but should share the Creator's concern for all living creatures.

• While God gave man dominion over the earth, he must never take this as a license to misuse and exploit the earth. As a steward man has a responsibility to God, to God's creatures and to God's created world.

• When God created the earth and its creatures, He declared it all "good." The creation has value in itself. Christian theology must not only be concerned with man's relation to God and other humans but also with the created order. Kauffman says, "Omitting man's relation to God's creation is a serious omission. This inadequacy in theology and ethics, no doubt, has been partially responsible for man's arrogant attitude toward nature and the earth, and for exploitation and pollution."