The Bible and the Environment

Towards a Critical Ecological Biblical Theology

David G. Horrell

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317324362
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

The biblical and Christian traditions have long been seen to have legitimated and encouraged humanity's aggressive domination of nature. Biblical visions of the future, with destruction for the earth and rescue for the elect, have also discouraged any concern for the earth's future or the welfare of future generations. But we now live in a time when environmental issues are at the centre of political and ethical debate. What is needed is a new reading of the biblical tradition that can meet the challenges of the ecological issues that face humanity at the beginning of the third millennium. 'The Bible and the Environment' examines a range of biblical texts - from Genesis to Revelation - evaluating competing interpretations. The Bible provides a thoroughly ambivalent legacy. Certainly, it cannot provide straightforward teaching on care for the environment but nor can it simply be seen as an anti-ecological book. Developing an 'ecological hermeneutic' as a way of mediating between contemporary concerns and the biblical text, 'The Bible and the Environment' presents a way of productively reading the Bible in the context of contemporary ecology.

Part I Reading the Bible in Light of the Ecological Crisis: Approaches to Interpretation

DOI: 10.4324/9781315656205-1

Chapter 1 The Ecological Crisis and the Challenge to the Christian Tradition

DOI: 10.4324/9781315656205-2

Just a few decades ago, environmental issues were somewhat at the margins of political debate. Concerns were raised about the impact of human activity on the natural world in the early 1960s, notably in Rachel Carson’s classic Silent Spring, which highlighted the impact of chemical pesticides in particular (Carson 2000 [1962]). Carson’s hugely influential book, Linda Lear notes, “initiated the contemporary environmental movement” (Lear 1999: 258). Also at the beginning of what has since become a gathering tide, Joseph Sittler, in a 1961 address to the World Council of Churches calling for ecumenical unity, noted the gravity of the threat to nature, and saw in the cosmic Christology of Colossians 1 a doctrinal basis with which to draw all of creation into the orbit of God’s redemption (Sittler 2000b [1962]; see ch. 7 below). Indeed, already in the 1950s Sittler was articulating the need for a “theology for earth”, a theology which would rekindle a positive view of the earth as bound up in God’s redemptive work (Sittler 2000a [1954]). In 1967, Lynn White Jr, to whose classic article we shall shortly return, spoke of “our ecologic crisis”, holding Western Christianity largely to blame. “Green” activists and pressure groups emerged – with Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth both formed in 1971 – which campaigned on issues from nuclear power and industrial pollution to pesticides and waste disposal. But “green” issues mostly remained somewhat at the margins of political and public debate.

During the 1980s there was a widespread growth in awareness of environmental concerns, with landmark moments such as the discovery in 1985 of the ozone depletion over Antarctica – a discovery which quite rapidly led to a series of international agreements concerning the use of CFCs, these being responsible for this ozone impact (see Maslin 2007 [2002]: 21–22). In the subsequent years there has been a gradually increasing focus on environmental issues in general, and global warming in particular.

In the last few years, the degree of focus has rapidly intensified. The subject of global warming has gained enormous attention, and is now recognized by governments the world over as one of the key issues demanding international action now and in the coming years. As Michael Northcott already noted in 1996, “[t]he single most pervasive and potentially cataclysmic factor in the ecological crisis is that of climate change” (Northcott 1996: 2). Quite rapidly, the debate has shifted from the question of whether human activity is causing global warming, to a question predicated on the scientific consensus that this is indeed the case: How can we act to avert, or at least to mitigate, what seem to be the potentially enormous consequences of the climatic changes already being caused by global warming? It is becoming increasingly clear that massive and immediate reductions in CO₂ emissions are required in order to ameliorate the likely impact of ongoing global warming, but there are questions about whether the political will exists to deal decisively and swiftly with the situation. The state of the evidence is briefly summarized by Mark Maslin:

The most recent [2001] report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), shows there is clear evidence for a 1.1°F (0.6°C) rise in global temperatures and a 7¾ in (20 cm) rise in sea level during the twentieth century. There is evidence for a 40 per cent reduction in the thickness of sea ice over the Arctic Ocean. Mountain glaciers are melting at the fastest rate ever recorded. There has been a 40 per cent increase in storm activity in the North Atlantic region over the last 50 years and global floods and droughts have become more frequent. In England, the winter of 2000/2001 was the wettest on record, while the heat wave in 2003 killed at least 35,000 people in Europe. The IPCC report predicts that global temperatures will rise by up to 10.4°F (5.8°C) by 2100. (Maslin 2007: 7)

The precise impact of global warming in the near and distant future is harder to predict, given the difficulties entailed in modelling the processes involved. But the likely scenarios include the following (see Maslin 2007: 39–55). (1) Increased sea-levels and associated flooding will have a massive impact on countries with large populations living in low-lying areas, such as Bangladesh and Thailand, and will make some islands, such as the Maldives, uninhabitable. (2) More frequent and violent storms and floods will mean that “the Caribbean, United States, and Central America … will be hit more often and by bigger, more violent, hurricanes” (Maslin 2007: 48). (3) Rapid climate change will lead to the depletion or extinction of plant and animal species; coral reefs are one example of an ecosystem under particular threat. (4) Agriculture will be affected by changes in climate, and some areas may become uncultivatable. Crops which are particularly sensitive to variations in temperature and moisture supply are especially vulnerable. (5) Water supplies will also be affected, such that relatively wet countries will become wetter, while those prone to drought will become still drier. (6) Finally, some diseases may become more prevalent and dangerous given the increased warmth and moisture associated with global warming. Malaria, for example, may well spread “due to expansion of the areas suitable for malaria transmission … The incidence of infection is most sensitive to climate changes in areas of Southeast Asia, South America and parts of Africa. Global warming will also provide for the first time ever the right conditions for mosquitoes to breed in Southern England, Europe and the northern United States” (Maslin 2007: 54). The latest (2007) report of the IPCC affirms and intensifies the scale of the threat, consolidating the scientific evidence for human-induced global warming and clarifying the scale of the likely changes (see IPCC 2007).

While global warming is the most prominent environmental issue attracting political and public concern, there are plenty of other topics too, with impacts ranging from the local to the global: waste disposal, pollution, the reduction of biodiversity through species loss, the destruction of ecosystems, the loss of fertile topsoils and accessible water supplies. The list of issues could go on (see Northcott 1996: 1–32; Bouma-Prediger 2001: 39–66 for discussion of key issues and statistics). Again, the statistics paint a sobering picture: it has been estimated that “around 10,000 species are destroyed annually as a consequence of human activity in the natural world” (Northcott 1996: 21). “Tropical forests are currently destroyed at the rate of twenty-five million acres per year”, an area equivalent in size to the state of Indiana (Bouma-Prediger 2001: 47). And quite apart from the intrinsic worth we might ascribe to all such species and ecosystems, the impact of human activity adds to the immense suffering of millions of the world’s poorest people, who experience the worst impacts of polluted water supplies, loss of fertile lands, and the increased risk of flooding consequent upon global warming (see Clifford 2007).

In a recent study, James Martin-Schramm and Robert Stivers offer a concise diagnosis of the major causes of such problems:

Environmental degradation is a product of five interrelated causes: (1) too many people, (2) some of whom are consuming too much, (3) using powerful technologies that frequently damage nature’s ecosystems, (4) supported by economic and political systems that permit and even encourage degradation, and (5) informed by anthropocentric attitudes toward nature. (Martin-Schramm and Stivers 2003: 10)

World population, they note, is now at around 6 billion and increasing by roughly 1.3% p.a. (p. 10). The UN has predicted that it will grow to 9 billion by 2050 before beginning to stabilize (p. 11). Whatever the precise figures in the future, the sheer numbers of human beings now on the planet already place enormous demands upon its natural resources, and this will only increase.

But this pressure is particularly exerted by people in the richer countries of the world, given their levels of material consumption. “The quantities”, Martin-Schramm and Stivers note, “are staggering by any historical measure” (p. 11). Technological developments – which can of course bring positive benefits as well as negative impacts – enable industrial and commercial activities on a huge scale and with correspondingly huge impacts; one need only think of the impact of the development of the internal combustion engine. To compound the problem, they note that “high levels of consumption are critical to the functioning of modern capitalism” (p. 12); economic growth and ever-expanding consumption are essential to the system. Moreover, with many countries in the world, China and India perhaps the most prominent examples, seeking to develop and expand economically at as fast a rate as possible – not least in order to alleviate the poverty of their citizens – the pressures of production and consumption seem only likely to increase. And developing countries understandably object when the richest countries of the world, who have already reaped the benefit of exploiting not only their own natural resources but those of other countries too, now try to restrain the activity of those who would like a share in the prosperity.

Yet it is the last factor that Martin-Schramm and Stivers mention that is of particular interest to us: “anthropocentric [i.e., human-centred] attitudes toward nature”. This points to an aspect of the causes of our environmental problems that lies not so much in production or consumption, in agriculture or industry per se, but rather in the kind of attitudes, or worldview, that people have. Religion in general, and the biblical tradition specifically, is arguably of key significance in shaping people’s worldview, their understanding of the way things are, their place in the world, and their relationship to that which is around them.

Indeed, this is precisely the argument of Lynn White Jr, in a 1967 article that has become the most cited piece in the whole ecotheological debate. White argued that it is the Christian worldview, as it developed in Western Christianity, that legitimated and encouraged humanity’s aggressive project to dominate and exploit nature. The basic reason for this is that “[e]specially in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen” (White 1967: 1205). According to this worldview, White suggests, everything that exists in the natural world was “planned” by God “explicitly for man’s benefit and rule; no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man’s purposes”. Humanity is seen as uniquely made in the image of God, and as given “dominion” over all the creatures of the earth (Gen 1.26–30). Sweeping aside other ancient mythologies, with their cyclical views of time and their animistic sacralization of nature, Christianity thus “not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends … Man’s effective monopoly … was confirmed and the old inhibitions to the exploitation of nature crumbled.” Thus, “Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects” (p. 1205). White concludes that the active conquest of nature that characterizes the modern technological project and has led to the “ecologic crisis” has in large part been made possible by the dominance in the West of this Christian world-view. Christianity therefore “bears a huge burden of guilt” (p. 1206).

However, White does not dismiss the Christian tradition out of hand; he appeals to the figure of St Francis as a positive model, a potential “patron saint for ecologists” (p. 1207). Also important is White’s insistence that religious worldviews are of profound importance in shaping our actions; he does not see salvation in secularism:

What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny – that is, by religion … More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one. (White 1967: 1205–06)

According to White, then, Christianity, and the creation stories on which its views of humanity and the world are based, bear a large responsibility for introducing the kind of worldview that has legitimated and encouraged aggressive human domination and exploitation of nature, and thus brought about our present “ecologic crisis”.

Also crucial to consider is the influence of biblical eschatology; that is, the view of the “end-times” (Greek eschata means “last things”) presented in various biblical books. A number of biblical texts appear to present images of cosmic destruction in their depictions of what will happen on “the day of the Lord”, a biblical label for the coming day of God’s judgement and salvation (see, e.g., Joel 1.15; Amos 5.18–20; 1 Thess. 5.2). Some texts suggest that catastrophes on the earth must precede this final day of salvation (e.g., Mark 13); others depict Christians being “caught up” to meet the returning Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4.16–17). Such texts, along with the enigmatic apocalyptic scenarios depicted in the book of Revelation, have, of course, shaped the development of contemporary Christian eschatologies. For example, some evangelical Christians anticipate a “rapture” of Christians from the earth, prior to a time of great tribulation; some believe that the return of Christ will happen suddenly, and may well be imminent (see ch. 2 below). The critical question is whether such eschatological views, explicitly or implicitly, foster a view of the earth as merely a temporary and soon-to-be destroyed home for humans, from which the elect will be rescued. The implication would be that preserving the earth is hardly a priority, and may even represent opposition to the progress of God’s eschatological purposes. Indeed, some writers have argued that such views make evangelical Christians disinclined to care for the earth. David Orr, for example, suggests that “belief in the imminence of the end times tends to make evangelicals careless stewards of our forests, soils, wildlife, air, water, seas and climate” (Orr 2005: 291). Just as White’s seminal article raised critical questions about the impact of the biblical creation stories, so the arguments of Orr and others raise critical questions about the impact of biblical eschatology on Christian attitudes towards the environment.

Many theologians and biblical scholars have responded to such criticisms, often attempting to defend Christianity and the Bible against these kinds of accusations. One central question is indeed of fundamental importance: Does the Christian tradition really inculcate an ecologically damaging worldview? White’s essay in particular, although it does not explicitly engage with biblical texts, raises the question as to whether this Christian worldview, with its positioning of humankind as supreme over creation, is one constructed and promoted by the Bible itself. Similarly, we may ask how far a world-negating, anti-environmental stance is encouraged by the Bible’s eschatological visions. Such questions begin to indicate the agenda for this book. Our task is to consider what kind o...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Part I: Reading The Bible in Light of the Ecological Crisis: Approaches to Interpretation
• Part II: A Survey of Selected Biblical Texts and Their Varied Interpretation
• Part III: Dealing with an Ambivalent Legacy: Proposals for an Ecological Hermeneutic
• Bibliography
• Index of Biblical Texts
• Index of Subjects and Authors