The Ecological Bankruptcy of Christianity? (4)

Christian Responses to the Culpability Allegation

There have been many responses to the central allegation of White's argument, that Christianity bears the burden of guilt for the environmental crisis. I shall examine these in turn under the categories of apologetic, reconstructionist, and revisionary responses.

Apologetic Responses

A significant number of Christian theologians have responded to the criticism levelled by White and others by highlighting the positive aspects present within the Christian tradition for responding to the environmental crisis, in particular the principle of 'good stewardship.'^[20] In 1994, the Evangelical Environment Network published 'An Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation,' which arose both from frustration within the Evangelical tradition at the perceived equivocation of the World Council of Churches with regard to the status of human beings within creation, and as a response to the 1993 Earth Summit.^[21] This focus on human stewardship of creation is key to the Declaration:

Our God-given, stewardly talents have often been warped from their intended purpose: that we know, name, keep and delight in God's creatures; that we nourish civilization in love, creativity, and obedience to God; and that we offer creation and civilization back in praise to the creator. ... We commit ourselves to work for responsible public policies which embody the principles of biblical stewardship of creation.^[22]

The Declaration was written to catalyse engagement with the culpability accusation by evangelicals who felt otherwise alienated from the ecumenical movement, and the Evangelical Environment Network sought (and gained) endorsement of the Declaration from church leaders across the world.^[23]

The Declaration rightly acknowledges human responsibility for environmental degradation, justly recognises the connection between ecological destruction and poverty, and creatively presents the issues through the perspective of a God of creation and healing. Nonetheless, it remains deeply anthropocentric in orientation. Talk of stewardship and uniqueness emphasises humankind apart from nature. In his response to the Declaration, Moltmann stresses that creation is a Trinitarian process in which 'Christ is present in every created being,' so '^[w]hat we do to the Earth we do to Christ.'^[24] The presence of God in the whole cosmos demands that humankind lives in creation-community, such that the Noahic covenant determines the basis for rights for humans, for our descendants, for every living creature and for nature: '^[n]ature is not our property, neither are we only part of nature. All living beings are partners in God's covenant, each in its own way.'^[25]

There are of course more extreme responses under this category, grouped under two basic themes. The first sees the destruction of the Earth as, in some measure, an inevitable manifestation of Christian eschatology, and therefore welcome.^[26] The second is a subset of the first, and sees any action to reduce ecological damage as positively anti-Christian. This stems from consternation at the apparent influence of non-Christian religions, especially New Age spirituality, on environmentalism.^[27] Though these perspectives do seem to be limited to particularly conservative expressions of Christianity, it is alarming that these views are still common in the light of the 'inconvenient truth' of modern environmental science.^[28]

Footnotes