Theology of Environmental Responsibility

This was prepared for a lecture delivered to M.Div students at Kosin University, Busan, S.Korea, 29 May 2014, but has been extended.

Note: "Responsibility" does not refer to culpability for past wrongs, but an attitude of responsibility towards the future, and especially the future of others than oneself.

Contents:

• 1. Introduction
• 1.1 Current state in theology
• 1.2 My journey towards a new view

• 2. Theology 1, of Souls, Heaven and Acceptability to God
• 3. Theology 2, of Experience of God and Abundant Life
• 4. Theology 3, of Justice and Kingdom of God

• 5. A New View in Theology and Practice
• 6. Application
• 6.1 Example: climate change
• 6.2 Comparison with abolition of slave trade
• 6.3 Implications for leaders, pastors, etc.
• 7. Conclusion

1. INTRODUCTION

• extinction of species
• pollution of water, seas, air, soil
• deforestation
• industrialization
• methods in agriculture etc. (biological v. industrial)
• climate change
• and others.

What is written or taught here might be controversial; I have never put this together before in this way.

1.1 Current State in Theology

I see theology as a theorization of humanity's experience with God in His creation. It treats that as an area of study, and seeks general understanding (theories and rules) by analytical thinking and critical discourse. Scriptures are an important part of its material. In principle, theology can occur in any religion (even atheism), not just Christianity. Theology, morality and philosophy cannot be reduced to each other.

Leaders, pastors, missionaries, etc. need to understand, in order to give direction, rightly critique error, engage in self-critique, and "give a reason for the hope that is in you" [II Peter]. Hence theology is important to them. I direct theology to understanding of, and discourse about:

• The character of God (because God is the Origin of all))
• The nature of creation (this is meaningless because it originates with God)
• The role of humanity (because we seem to be somewhat different)
• The scope of salvation (because there is problem that is important in God's eyes)
• These times in God's Plan (because God's Plan advances and so the context changes).

(These overlap. And they could be expanded or augmented with other issues, such as role of God's people (Israel, church), motivation for missionary work, relationship with the 'secular' world, the nature of sin, etc. But such are arguably covered within these five.)

How we understand these is influenced, and influences, how we interpret Scripture. My approach to Scripture is 'face-value', 'everyday'.

Three main limited theologies, or attempts to theorize 'movements' of God:

• Theology of souls, heaven and acceptability to God,
• Theology of experience of God here and now, abundant life,
• Theology of God's kingdom in the world.

(There are others. For example, a theology of missionary activity links with each of these, but probably cannot be totally reduced to any of them.)

1.2 My Journey Towards a New View

However, I didn't find any compelling basis for taking environmental responsibility seriously in any of the three theologies. I wanted something compelling, otherwise I should not waste my time with it. So I decided to work it out for myself by looking at Scripture and history in a new way. I developed the ideas with a careful eye on everyday experience and practice, as well as existing theologies. (I dubbed it 'new view' early on for want of a better name, but it has stuck so far. None of the individual pieces below is entirely new, but perhaps it is new in the way it is brought together.)

As I developed my ideas, I found each of the three limited or flawed in other ways too, and yet each provides some insight that is found throughout Scripture and cannot (should not) be overlooked. For example, each emphasises only one dimension of salvation as expounded in Romans 8), and none provide compelling basis for being involved in academic work.

Steps towards this 'new view' theology were:

• Heart for environmental responsibility, and for application of faith to everyday life and work;
• Green activism: Is it OK in God's eyes? Surely Bible should make this clear;
• Want to take the Bible seriously: I needed a compelling theology, not just 'OK';
• Stewards of God's creation under the Father;
• Resurrection of the rest of creation in Christ;
• Role of the Holy Spirit;
• Coherence with evangelical gospel and reformational ideas;
• New light shed on all Scripture; 'Brief History of God' (See "http://www.abxn.org/bhg/".

• A 'new view' in theology and practice. (See "http://www.abxn.org/nv/" .)

What got me going to develop this 'new view' was the sudden realisation that the same word radah is used in both Genesis 1:26-28 and Ezekiel 34 to describe the rulership that we have over creation and that shepherds have over sheep. I realised there were two questions:

This suggested that the rest of creation is not there for us, but we are there for its sake, even though we are given 'dominion' over it.

The rest of creation might be more than animals and birds, and extend to aspects of human life like art, economics, technology, politics, academia etc. "For its sake" could mean: 'Open up the potential of the creation, for its own sake under its Creator'.

The journey continues ...

In what follows: look at three main kinds of theology, their spheres of interest, why they cannot be the basis for a genuine theology of environmental responsibility, and why we need one. Then we look at the 'new view', which does give such a basis, followed by a discussion of climate change and implications for leaders, pastors, missionaries, etc.

2. THEOLOGY 1, SOULS, HEAVEN AND ACCEPTABILITY TO GOD

Versions: Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Anabaptism, Contemplativism, (Pharisaism, Islam, Hinduism?)

This theology is deeply influenced by Greek form-matter dualism, which has a pagan rather than Biblical root, and also by the Scolastic nature-grace dualism. [See Clouser, 2005, The Myth of Religious Neutrality].

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3. THEOLOGY 2, EXPERIENCE OF GOD HERE AND NOW: ABUNDANT LIFE

Versions: Methodism of 1800s, Holiness movements, Revival movements, Pentecostalism, Prosperity gospel, (Spiritual warfare), (Sufi Islam?)

This theology is influenced by the Scholastic dualism of nature-grace or sacred-secular in what it finds interesting about the here-and-now. Humanist influence can also be detected in the hedonism that this theology encourages.

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4. THEOLOGY 3, JUSTICE AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD

Versions: Liberation theology, Social gospel theology, Kingdom theology, (some Judaism and Islam?).

Even in its evangelical versions, this theology tends to be deeply influenced by the Humanist dualism of human versus non-human, control versus freedom.

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5. A NEW VIEW IN THEOLOGY AND PRACTICE

Theology 1 has no place at all for a theology of environmental responsibility. Theologies 2, 3 have a place for it, but it is usually 'bolted on' to their core interests, of either individual experience of God or justice for the marginalized. For example:

• Theology 1: "Extinction of species is a pity, but unimportant."
• Theology 2: "It's a pity if those pretty birds are lost, but I'm not 'called' to save them."
• Theology 3: "We should be fighting for justice, not bothering about pretty flowers and insects."

Some in Theology 3 might extend "Love your neighbour" to animals by redefining 'neighbour' - but such redefinitions are not compelling. Neither do I find the utilitarian reasons given by theology 2, whether about prettiness or e.g. as a source of future medicines.

The other theologies each recognise and tap into some aspects of how creation works, but ignore others. Might it be that Theology 1 takes a juridical standpoint, recognising the genuineness of guilt? Theology 2 may be said to take an aesthetic standpoint, enjoyment. Theology 3 may be said to take a moral standpoint, of self-giving to the poor, or perhaps a juridical standpoint of rights.

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6. APPLICATION

6.1 Example: Climate Change

• The Visible Problem of Climate Change. Excess greenhouse gases are generated, which increases the overall amount of energy trapped in the atmosphere and seas. This results, over decades, in increasing frequency of storms of increasing severity, melting of ice, etc. exacerbated by positive feedback (tipping points)). The poor of the world will suffer more than the affluent. Affluent nations might be able to adapt, but poorer nations will not. Disruption to ecosystems, and to food production, with the farming sector having to learn new ways (rich farmers can gain education and take opportunites; subsistence farmers cannot, so will starve). Human activities that generate most net CC emissions, or are growing exponentially: electricity production, transport (flying is 10 times worse than rail), construction (cement), cattle farming, deforestation, manufacturing.

• The Visible Actions to Address Climate Change. Prevention is better than cure. But any preventative measures taken now take effect 30 years later. Local, national and international action, but they can lead to excuses ("we cannot act alone, that would put us at a disadvantage"). Need to 'de-carbonise' our lifestyles. Some actions being tried: carbon trading, nuclear power, lower-power cars, tree-planting, carbon capture and storage. (Notice, these are all technological solutions, and technology brings acclaim and creative fulfilment to those involved, and disruption to others.) UK is committed to 80% reduction in CC emissions by 2050 - but is doing this by outsourcing their CCE production to China, Korea, etc. Real need is to change lifestyle, e.g. reduce driving by 80% rather than driving more and hoping that 30% increase in efficiency will do! e.g. Flying less, learning to enjoy local facilities. People try politics and education, but it doesn't work, because of the strength of vested interests and the fickleness of the good. Reminds me of Israel and Judah before they were exiled.

• How Each Flawed Theology Might Respond. Theology 1 refuses to consider it; "Would you rather save a soul or save a rainforest?". Theology 2: Self-centred unconcern; "No worries God will intervene" or "Oh, it will be a pity when our nice landscape is changed, but church calls". Theology 3: Self-righteous panic; "We must act strongly".

• How God Might See The Root Problem of Climate Change.
  • "God has compassion on all he has made" [Ps 145:9]
  • "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart." [I Samuel], "The heart is deceitful above all things" []
  • "This was the sin of Sodom: affluence, arrogance, unconcern for the poor" [Ezek 16:49]
  • "everlasting kingdom" [Psa 145:13], "new heavens and earth" [Rev 21:1], "whatever is built with gold, silver, precious stones ..." [I Cor 3]
  • "The time has come ... to destroy those who destroy the earth." [Rev 11:18]

  • "The nations are like drop in a bucket ... as dust on the scales" [Isa 40:15]
  • "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts" [Zech 4:6].
  • "He who is faithful with little is also faithful with much" [Mt 25, Lk 19]. "What you did for the least of these, you did for me" [Mt ]. "That which is built of gold, silver, precious stones will survive" [I Cor 3].
  • "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so that whoever receives him may not perish but have eternal life." [Jn 3:16]
  • "He who would save his life will lose it; he who loses his life for my sake will find it." [Lk 9:23-24]. protect their comforts, conveniences, pleasures)
  • "The creation awaits with eager longing for the sons of God to be revealed" [Rm 8]

  Lifestyle, aspirations and attitude - the heart. We blame the big companies - yet millions of us demand their products. We are the 'affluent', looking after our own pleasures at the expense of the life of the poor and of the planet He loves. I might be environmentally aware, but ... I, as consumer, am to blame: I love my affluent lifestyle, and am unwilling to jeopardise it, I drive too much, fly too much, demand too many goods, demand aesthetic goods, etc. I, as company manager, am to blame: I fail to seek more environmentally responsible solutions to my business problems, I am unwilling to invest in environmentally responsible technology or procedures, I lack courage to take the ethical stance amidst the competition, I fail to put environment high on my list of priorities, I fail to educate myself and my colleagues about environmental issues. I, as opinion former (media, Twitterer, or church pastor), am to blame: I fail to seek a true rich understanding of environmental issues, I dare not urge environmental responsibility when it's not fashionable, I "tickle the ears" of those who hear me, I desire a following and acclaim ("the praise of men"), or I try the softly-softly approach. All this comes from the heart - idolatry and cowardice.

• The Necessary Conditions for Sustainable Action. Not human effort or self-righteousness, but the three dimensions of salvation are the only long-term solution:
  • Dimension 1: Repentance before God (which confesses, acknowledges our wrongness of heart as well as actions), rather than trying to make amends. Only then can we acknowledge deeply our wrong attitudes and heart, as well as our wrong actions.

  • Dimension 2: Allow the Holy Spirit to grow His fruit in us (note: love, joy, peace, patience, etc. are about attitude), and trust Him to bestow gifts and power, even miracles. If we are persecuted, then we have Father God to turn to.

  • Dimension 3: As mature 'sons of God', to work boldly, wisely and humbly in His suffering world. It "awaits with eager longing" for us to be 'revealed' to it. So we work all levels: individual, community, and society. Trust that we are working God's work, that He is working with and through us, "working together for good". God's people have always brought healing and goodness into this world that was not there before. God's people are called to be leaders in the world, not followers or resisters. "Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors, through Him Who loves us!" [Rm 8:37]

  This completes the circle, enabling humanity to fulfil its creational mandate to rule the rest of for its sake not our own and thus representing God to the rest of creation. When we turn to Christ in this rich way, He stems the evil that would otherwise have occurred.

Note: Climate change has been analysed in this way. But other environmental issues, such as deforestation or over-fishing or pollution, could be analysed similarly. So can other major issues, such as how ICT is radically changing our lives.

6.2 Comparison with the abolition of the slave trade

One important implication of climate responsibility is that we need to use our cars (and aircraft) much less than we do in the UK and especially the USA. Yet people in China, Korea, India, Brazil, Nigeria etc. aspire the car-dependent lifestyle we see there. Eric Metaxas suggested that when William Wilberforce sought to abolish the slave trade, it was as radical as saying that people should stop using their cars. See "http://www.abxn.org/discussion/slavcc.html" for how excuses made against climate responsibility match those made against the case for abolishing the slave trade. The left column is excuses mentioned by British MP Bannister Tarleton in a debate on the abolition of the slave trade (source: BBC Radio 4 on 25 March 2007). The right column is equivalent excuses today, especially in the UK.

Abolition of Slavery	Reducing Road Use and Air Traffic
Slaves are not really badly treated.	Driving my car doesn't do any harm. And in any case, it's not certain that climate change is man-made.
If you continue the debate about abolition you will repeat the Haiti slave revolt in Jamaica (a British colony of the time).	You will just upset the drivers if you tell people to change their behaviour.
What else would Wilberforce abolish: theatres, dancing, fun, etc.?	They'll be wanting us all to wear hair shirts next.
If the slave trade is abhorrent to God, why does the Church of England own sugar plantations?	"Show me a climate change activist and I'll show you a hypocrite" [Daily Mail, March 2007]
Slavery has been in existence for thousands of years.	We've been using cars for ages without problem.
Cultivation of sugar and cotton 'raises' the negroes.	The developing countries have a right to what we enjoy.
Wilberforce would throw negroes back into barbarism.	They just want to prevent developing countries developing.
There would be a £7 million loss to the British economy (a million those days, 1807, was huge)	Any restriction on road use or on air travel would damage our economy.
Great cities like Liverpool would be ruined.	We must have the fifth terminal at Heathrow so that it can be a hub airport like Amsterdam and Paris.
The trade, with all its wealth, would be taken to France.	If we don't produce things, then they'll just be produced in China? And does not China built a coal-fired power station every week?

See "http://www.abxn.org/like.slavery.html" for detailed comparison of William Wilberforce's life, work and times with today.

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6.3 Implications for Leaders, Pastors, etc.

The following is not meant to be a final truth, but to stimulate serious, humble consideration and discussion.

This challenges Christian leaders, pastors, missionaries, etc. in each of the theological foundation points. It is not just a matter of being generally supportive of environmental responsibility, but of taking a lead in ensuring that what we understand, demonstrate and convey in each of the following is the full, rich view rather than the limited view of one of the main three theologies.

• The character of God: What aspect of God's character do we tend to emphasise? The judge, the pampering grandfather, the army general, the champion of marginalized, or do we emphasise "God is love" in a way that gives meaning to all in creation? (It also embraces these ideas in harmony) Do we see God looking on the heart, or just on the worldly Christian debates (e.g. evolutionism, homosexualism)? Do we really understand God's character for ourselves, by experience, or do we merely take on what others have told us?

• The nature of creation: Do we really grasp the diversity of meaningfulness in creation? Do we really understand our interconnectedness with the rest of creation? Or are we infected by the false dualisms of matter-form, sacred-secular or nature-freedom (nature-human)? Or the false dualisms that have informed Korean thought [See YJChoi's thesis.]? Dooyeweerd's philosophy can help us in understanding the nature of creation.

• The role of humanity: What understanding of the role of humanity do we have? What aspirations do we encourage people to have?
  • Do we see as the dignity of humanity as souls to be saved, princes, workers for justice, or do we see humanity as representing God to the rest of creation?

  • What destiny do we emphasise - heaven, abundant life and eventual glory, a kingdom without injustice, or as in harmony with creation now and more gloriously in the new heaven and earth?

  • What responsibility do we emphasise - to save souls, to seek piety, power or love for God, to battle for justice, or to 'radah' the creation so it experiences God's Plan for it - the natural world, and all human aspects?

• The scope of salvation: How many dimensions of salvation do we teach? How many have we experienced? Do we really understand deeply the groaning of creation and the role of the 'sons of God'? If more than one dimension, are they integrated and working together in God's Cosmic Plan, or are they just bolted together without clear understanding of the relationship between them?

• These times in God's Plan. Are we like the Pharisees and Sadducees, whom Jesus castigated for not discerning the signs of the times [Mt 16:3]? Do we merely cite verses and expound passages that were important in previous times (the Reformation, Pentecostal movement, etc.), or, understanding the role of these, do we move on to see the importance of the rest of creation and our ability to take the lead in responsibility to it? Today we face a situation unlike any since the start of history: humankind is together affecting the planet and "destroying the earth" [Rev 11:18].

7. CONCLUSION

I believe that it is a theology that can operate across all cultures, and even enable genuine discourse with other religions and ideologies without compromise and yet showing the character of God.

This page, URL= "http://abxn.org/nv/env.thgy.html", is part of the on-going work in developing a 'New View' in theology and practice that is appropriate to the days that are coming upon us. Comments, queries welcome by emailing

       

Compiled by Andrew Basden as part of his reflections from a Christian perspective. Copyright (c) Andrew Basden to latest date below, but you may use this material for almost any purpose, but subject to certain conditions.

Written on the Amiga with Protext in the style of classic HTML.

Created: 13 May 2014. Last updated: 20 May 2014 revamped. 28 February 2015 correction. 24 March 2021 Defined "responsibility", new .end,.nav,bgc.