TOWARD A WESLEYAN THEOLOGY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Margaret G. Flowers
Professor Emerita of Biology, Wells College
Research Fellow, Northeastern Seminary
Pastor, Clarion Free Methodist Church
Controversies always capture public attention, and this seems especially true
when the scientific and Christian communities are pitted against one another. The highly
publicized controversy over teaching evolution, creation and Intelligent Design in the
public schools has overshadowed a debate with more serious and long-lasting
ramifications, and one with practical implications: how should we care for creation?
There is little doubt that the environment is worthy of care: conditions raising the
issue of environmental stewardship – species extinction, habitat loss, land and water
degradation, and climate change – have been acknowledged within the scientific and
Christian communities. However, the ultimate cause of these conditions has served to
fuel antagonistic positions between science and Christianity.
Christian positions regarding environmental stewardship range from alignment
with the recommended environmental watch group agendas to flat rejection of their
proposals, often because of suspicion of the scientific community. Also at issue is the
motivating force behind environmental stewardship – is preservation for the benefit of the
human species, or are the non-human parts of creation intrinsically worth preservation?
Because the environmental crisis has physical effects, scientific study and
scientifically-based remediation are required. Also involved are human behaviors
influenced by specific worldviews, including religious ones. The combination of science
and religion, then, would appear to be necessary to counteract the current crisis. This
Flowers 2
paper explores the contours of the debate, then turns to examine the Wesleyan
understanding of the environment and the responsibility of humanity for that
environment, and whether a Wesleyan perspective could be a mediating voice that could
inform the contemporary environmental discussion.
The Contemporary Debate
In his 1967 paper, “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis,”i Lynn White,
Jr. set both tone and context of the contemporary dialog between the Christian church and
the field of environmental science. White’s accusation that because medieval,
Renaissance and Enlightenment advances in science had religious roots and because the
Christian view of man over nature eliminated attitudinal barriers against damaging or
exploiting the environment, the blame for damage to the environment may be placed
squarely at the door of the Church, which in its orthodox form remains antithetical to
environmental health.
Unlike scientific publications that are considered “out-of date” within five years,
White’s article has been reprinted,ii excerpted,iii and revised to remain “useful in
clarifying our historical and cultural foundations of contemporary ecological attitudes and
behaviors.”iv It has achieved “cult status within the environmental movement,”v is “a
cornerstone in the environmental studies literature,”vi and is quoted in college
textbooks,vii continuing to be a starting point in the academic search for the causes of the
current ecological crisis. It is impossible to overestimate the significance and impact of
White’s assertions.
Despite recognition that White’s logic is seriously flawed,viii he has had a
profound effect on the Christian environmental stewardship conversation and on attempts
Flowers 3
to formulate a theology of environmental stewardship. A number of articlesix speak
directly to his assertions, and number of theological collections republish or extensively
excerpt White’s original article.x
Reaction to White has been mixed. Some Christian writers agree with White’s
thesis that the Christian church bears some guilt for the deteriorating state of the
environment.xi In contrast, other members of the Christian community reject the need for
an eco-theological focus because of scientific disagreement of the severity of the problem
and scientific evidence of past natural climatic variations. Strident and active opposition
to Christian involvement has been led by economist Beisnerxii and proponents of the
“Wise Use Movement,” who contend that environmentalists have produced a crisis
mentality fostering socialism.xiii The heart of the opposition seems to lie in the
unwillingness to be seen as allies with environmentalists, who include proponents of
worldviews shaped by New Age,xiv Gaia,xv ecofeminismxvi and Deep Ecology.xvii
In the wake of White’s article, evidence of Church advocacy of environmental
stewardship has been sought in biblical texts and theological writings. There has,
however, been an absence of an eco-theological examination of the Wesleyan revival.xviii
John Wesley the Scientist
To be a mediating voice between the communities of science and faith requires
speaking both the language of science and that of theology. It might be argued that the
contemporary situation differs so dramatically from the one of Wesley’s time, that his
work might be obsolete. xix However, since Wesley extended his anthropology to include
all creation, he offers valuable insights for the contemporary Christian understanding of
environmental stewardship. Wesley made important contributions in both the fields of
Flowers 4
medicine and what may loosely be termed “natural history,” demonstrating an acute
appreciation of the importance of observation and verification of results through
experimentation. In addition, his eschatological views, his advocacy of animal rights and
social holiness, and his opposition to Deism have profound implications for
contemporary environmental stewardship.
It must be noted that Wesley copied and excerpted works of others, both scientific
and theological. While it has been argued that Wesley’s copied material does not
necessarily imply his agreement,xx his prefaces, intercalated comments, and editing
suggest assent.xxi All works bearing Wesley’s name, therefore, will be examined as
evidence of his personal views.
Wesley was not an experimental scientist, but a minister of the gospel, more an
observer than an active participant; he had time to speculate about the causes of natural
events, not to conduct detailed experiments. Thus, in analyzing his scientific endeavors,
it is inappropriate to judge him with the same standards used for his scientific
contemporaries such as Priestley or Linnaeus. Despite his restricted time to pursue his
interest in natural history, he was as much an avid reader of science as theology.xxii
Charges of “antiscience” leveled at Wesley have been found to be without
merit;xxiii Wesley’s enemies were “deism, atheism, materialism and intellectual pride,”
not “natural philosophy.”xxiv His were not the anti-science/anti-modern sentiments of
eighteenth century Tory intellectuals and High Churchmen.xxv Wesley was unique in his
fascination with science,xxvi in his nuanced response to science,xxvii and his divergence
from the historic views that animals either were useful, hurtful, or superfluous to
humanity, and that the study of nature was futile in view of the approaching end of the
Flowers 5
world. His intellectual curiosity, keen observation, passion for experiment and analysis,
formulation of hypotheses,xxviii and willingness to be swayed by new evidence and
perspectivesxxix are marks of the scientific mind.
John Wesley the Natural Historian
Wesley’s writings in the field of natural history, found primarily in his natural
philosophy, A Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creationxxx and in his Journal,
demonstrate an acute appreciation for detailed and accurate observations of others, and an
ability to make his own observations. Importantly, in the decade before the appearance
of the Survey, fellow Englishman Mark Catesby’s pioneer work, The Natural History of
Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands with its life-like illustrations of animals and
plants in their natural relationships was published; it was a book that Wesley read,xxxi and
in which he certainly recognized many of the plants and animals from his years in
Georgia.
Much of Wesley’s life was spent in travel from one ministry location to another.
Scattered among the Journal references to destinations and events were references to the
landscapexxxii and notes on the unusual.xxxiii Attention to the objects of nature was
occasionally even necessary for Wesley’s ministry activities; he remarked on a proposed
preaching field that “was plentifully furnished with stones—artillery ready at hand for the
devil’s drunken companions.”xxxiv
Writings from the Journal and Survey bear directly on the question of Wesley’s
value as a scientist for the contemporary issues of environmental stewardship. As a
student of natural history, Wesley’s writings refuse tidy classification into modern
disciplines such as ecology, taxonomy and animal behavior. It is, nevertheless, a useful
Flowers 6
method to determine Wesley’s affinity to scientific inquiry, his view of the created world
and humanity’s responsibility toward that world. The majority of my analysis of Wesley
as a natural historian is taken from the Survey.
Ecology
Ecology is an interdisciplinary field, providing “a scientific context for evaluating
environmental issues”xxxv appreciation and understanding of this field is basic and critical
to the development of a plan for environmental stewardship. A basic tenet of ecology is
environmental control of species distributions. In the Survey, Wesley noted climatic
control of species distributions of plants; these, in turn, affect the soil.xxxvi He recorded
the unique vegetation and character of bogs and the differences between mountain and
lowland bogs.xxxvii Animals are also adapted to their environment; most dramatic are the
aquatic and terrestrial species that live in rigorous northern climates that possess cold
adaptations.xxxviii
Wesley described primary and secondary productivity in both terrestrial and
marine food chains and webs,xxxix and recognized the easily overlooked processes of
forest decomposition and the detritivore food chain,xl plant defensives against predation,
and the results of species competition.xli Species balance and the number of individuals
will reach the carrying capacity of the environment, and competition and predation will
result if this carrying capacity were exceeded. He also accurately described “Kselection” and “r-selection,” concepts that came into vogue in the ecological community
approximately forty years ago.xlii Dispersal and germination of seeds sometimes involves
structures on the seeds themselves, animal predation or appropriate meteorological
conditions, xliii but all require an appropriate microenvironment.xliv
Flowers 7
The created world is complex and dynamic. Wesley provided an excellent
account of primary xeric successionxlv as well as the more common secondary aquatic
succession.xlvi He also described the “holocoenotic environment” (a termed not yet
coined) where all parts, living and non-living, are linked and dependent on one
another.xlvii
Taxonomy, Genetics, Evolution
Even today, species and genera, and perhaps even families remain to be
discovered, especially in remote tropical and marine habitats.
Wesley also sensed this,
attempting to give an accurate estimate of global populations.xlviii With the relatively low
species diversity in England, he was unlikely to have a first-hand knowledge of species
extinction, one of the obvious results of modern environmental degradation.xlix
For Wesley, the creation was arranged in a “chain of being,” each part
imperceptibly different from ones less or more complex.l However, these species are
distinct, as Wesley noted in his description of what would later be called the “common
garden experiment,” used to distinguish between genetically-determined characteristics
from those resulting from genetically-permitted adaptations to the environment.li Despite
his belief in the fixity of species, Wesley recognized that change is a part of the natural
world.lii
Environmental stewardship requires not only a theoretical knowledge of the
numbers of species but also an intimate familiarity with specifics. The Survey and
Journal include detailed descriptions of plants and animals, local and foreign, wild and
“useful, for example, Catesby’s records on the manchineel.liii Observations of animals
included information on biogeography, morphology, nutrition, and behavior.
Flowers 8
Animal Behavior
The study of animal behavior is foundational to the animal rights movement that
is a part of the contemporary environmental protection movement. Wesley found from
personal observation – reported in his Journal – that some behavioral activities are
obviously involved with the survival of the individual or species reproduction; others are
not so apparent. Centuries before the advent of modern sociobiology, Wesley attributed
actions of the “brutes” to powers of reasoning, noting this feature was common to
humans and “brutes.”liv Contrasting such learned behavior, he also noted an example of
instinctive behavior in the nest-building of birds,lv and that in response to lowered
temperatures, many animals hibernate, or have markedly depressed levels of physical
activity, accompanied by drastically lowered respiratory levels.lvi
Altruistic behavior, often explained in terms of the complex reasoning of which
humans are capable, is less easily accounted for in other animals. Wesley noted an
example of altruism in cats,lvii and a behavioral complex between a Newfoundland dog
and an old raven.lviii His fascination with animal behavior even extended to a simple
experiment to determine if the Edinburgh lion’s “fondness” for music was shared by
other lions and tigers;lix later, he saw horses attracted to congregational singing.lx
God, Humanity, and the Creation
The Survey is a natural philosophy, “demonstrating the wisdom of God in the
creation.lxi That wisdom included both creation, and God’s continuing care for the
created order. Understanding the nature of this continuing care, and humanity’s part in
that care, can serve as the basis for a theology of environmental stewardship.
Flowers 9
All parts of the created order show forth the grandeur of God, and are written in a
universally understandable and obvious way.lxii By God’s command, the earth brought
forth the vast expanse of living creatures, and by his command, the earth continues to
preserve them,lxiii accommodating all the nutritional requirements of the food chain, while
allowing, through behavioral responses of the heterotrophs, for the “prey” to increase and
multiply.lxiv
Wesley insisted that God actively participates in sustaining the creation in all of
its complexity, lxv those parts obviously beneficial to the survival of humanity, and “Even
the spider, though abhorred by man.”lxvi Wesley’s appreciation of the created order –
species, communities, environments, and complex ecological relationships – was highly
nuanced. There are parts of creation that are “useful” to humanity and those that are not,
and humans have a God-given obligation to both,lxvii a duty which that must be
discharged with honor.lxviii Just how that duty is discharged is the conduct of
environmental stewardship.
John Wesley, Theologian
In the Survey Wesley said little about the nature of desirable human conduct
toward the creation. This is to be found in his extensive work as preacher and theologian,
where he considered the ethical demands of the Christian life with respect to God,
humanity – and the created world.
Wesley’s View of the Creation
Wesley affirmed the goodness of God’s creationlxix “at peace with man, so long as
man was at peace with his Creator.”lxx In the good creation there were adaptations that
would result in phytogeographic distributions ranging from the endemic to the
Flowers 10
cosmopolitan. Noting the degree of predation to be found in the post-fall animal
kingdom, Wesley envisioned the original creation to have had no need of such behavior;
in the perfection of the original holocoenotic environment, predation was evil, and,
therefore, unknown.lxxi
A recurrent theme in Wesley’s sermons is God’s continued care of his
creation,lxxii one that is particular for the needs of each creaturelxxiii and each and every
ecological relationship,lxxiv and clearly evident in the usual as well as unusual.lxxv After
noting the devastating effects of a torrential rain, Wesley concluded, “How frequent
would accidents of this kind be if chance, not God governed the world!”lxxvi
Prerequisite to formulation of a theology of environmental stewardship is an
understanding of the relationship between humanity and the rest of the created order.lxxvii
For Wesley, humanity is God’s representative on earth,lxxviii given the task of mediating
God’s blessings to the non-human creation.lxxix The difference between humans and the
rest of creation is not organic but relational: “Man is capable of God; the inferior
creatures are not”;lxxx humanity was created in the image of God, an image capable of
knowing, loving, and obeying God, and capable of caring for the rest of creation in the
same loving manner that God cares for it.lxxxi Wesley thus affirmed that all members of
creation have an inherent worth, but stopped short of the tenets of the contemporary
“Deep Ecologists” who contend that all living species have equal inherent value.lxxxii
Effects of the Fall
Wesley’s vision of the original creation, and the relationships in the created order
is not the world of experience,lxxxiii which reflects humanity’s misuse of its God-given
liberty.lxxxiv Humanity is not merely a part of the creation that has fallen into brutal
Flowers 11
behaviors caused by necessity, but has fallen farther than the rest of creation, because it
inflicts pain and torment without reason.lxxxv This fallen nature is pervasive, touching
even those who have given their lives to God’s work. One piece of advice Wesley gave
to his preachers was: “Be merciful to your beast.”lxxxvi
In John Wesley’s day, the English countryside and cities were characterized as
having an “impure…water supply, non-existent sewage disposal, and atmospheric
pollution.”lxxxvii Rivers and wells sunk just below the water table were often badly
polluted,lxxxviii and air was polluted from the heavy consumption of wood, peat, and high
sulfur coal.lxxxix Nevertheless “despite the fact that Londoners complained bitterly about
the smog caused by the many coal fires in winter, ecology was not on the theological
agenda in Wesley’s day.”xc
Even though focused attention to the environment was not uppermost in Wesley’s
mind, it was part of the landscape. While Wesley did not specifically address the
ecological ramifications of the “groaning of creation,” his descriptions of the features that
were not a part of the original good creation (dangerous geographical features, extreme
heat, polluted water and airxci) give insights into his thoughts. Was such environmental
damage purely the result of natural processes, or of human activity, such as mining, poor
agricultural methods, improper waste disposal, burning of fossil fuels? Certainly,
damaged land that is ugly and useless for agriculture or even dangerous for habitation is
incapable of fulfilling God’s purpose of providing for pleasure and welfare.
Restoration of the imago dei
If the fall of humanity from the image of God had such wide-ranging and
disastrous consequences on the creation, then logically the restoration of that image
Flowers 12
would be required to reverse the damage. This involves an actual transformation, “a real
as well as a relative change,”xcii marked by a change in humility, self-knowledge, and a
“sense of our condition,” leading to reformation of the will,xciii love of neighbor and
obedience of heart and life,xciv “a renewal of heart…in the whole image of God.”xcv
The restoration of the imago dei returns humanity to the position of dominion
over the creation as God’s deputy. This is connected with love of neighbor, including
neighbors of the future for whom we must work to make the world habitable. Since
God’s compassion is for all he has made, love of neighbor, by extension, should not be
limited to humans.xcvi
Eschatology
Expectation about the “end times” has profound implications for present
environmental stewardship. An eschatology that envisions the earth to end in a fireball,
and views every natural disaster as evidence of the imminent end, will be unlikely to
emphasize the importance of caring for the present environment. Wesley’s
“postmillennial” view was important in his interpretation of natural disasters and the
meaning of the new creation. Earthquakes, on whose effects he frequently
commented,xcvii were God’s call to repentance, not the means to bring about the new
creation.
The new creation will bring, both individually and globally, deliverance,
perfection and return to an existence reminiscent of the time before the Fall.xcviii The
“new earth” of Revelation 21 as a work in progress: a work that has already begun, and
not a work for the distant and unknowable future.xcix Human responsibility toward this
new creation is one of stewardship;c it must be cared for according to God’s intentions.
Flowers 13
Wesleyan Ecotheology
A theology of environmental stewardship must necessarily hold the non-human
parts of creation in high regard: as inherently worth stewardship. This requires
theological reflection, and a scientific appreciation and understanding of the components
of the natural world and the complex interactions within and among these components.
Wesley affirmed that all parts of the new creation, like the present creation, are of
inherent value, the “useful” and those that do not seem so. His life-long interest in
animals fostered the conviction that animals would be present in the renewed creation.ci
Animal pain was a significant theological problem. Since God would only permit evil in
the world if it resulted in a better outcome,cii in the new creation, brutes as well as
humans, will be saved.ciii The compelling reason for even children to exercise a
stewardship of creation (in kindness to animals)civ is rooted in God’s demonstrated love
for humanity in Christ. Love for God will also extend to neighbor, even the non-human
neighbor. Because of Wesley’s opposition to vivisection and blood sportscv he could
with merit be considered a forerunner of the contemporary animal rights movement.
What of wilderness habitat preservation? There is no doubt that Wesley had a
deep understanding and appreciation of the natural environment, but it was not blanket
adulation for anything natural. He reported the top of Mount Eagle, Ireland, to be an
unpleasing, uncultivated grassy plain.cvi What he did not indicate, if he knew himself, was
whether the summit was “waste and uncultivated” from exposure to cold and wind, or
from overgrazing. Wesley saw great beauty in cultivated lands,cvii appreciated cultivation
Flowers 14
and domestication; cviii and even used the work of husbandry as a metaphor for the
spiritual life.cix
Wesley was a scientifically-informed theologian who wrote on moral matters
pertaining to the treatment of the non-human creation, and did it through the lens of the
body of scientific knowledge of the natural world. But to suggest that Wesley had a welldeveloped ecotheology, even for the eighteenth century, is to make claims on his writings
that are too ambitious. But to claim that the absence of such a systematic treatment of
thought indicates a lack of either knowledge or concern is equally false. Certainly the
evidence is there—both theologically and scientifically—that Wesley viewed the creation
as worthy of care. His was not a stewardship based solely on the utility to the human
species, but based on the intrinsic value of all of creation in the eyes of God. His was a
balanced position between the modern-day “deep ecologists” and the “wise use
movement.”
A great strength of the Wesleyan view of environmental stewardship lies in the
fact that Wesley was willing to speak the language of the science of his time. Wesley’s
Survey is more than a natural philosophy to be viewed exclusively for its purpose of
demonstrating the goodness and wisdom of the Creator; it is a profoundly thorough and
accurate scientific document. An important result of the publication of the Survey was
that Wesley’s followers “were assured that the subject matter of science was worthy of
interest.”cx Wesley was, however, a product of his time. While it has been argued that
he did not select the best science of the time,cxi it is significant that he delved into the
world of science at all. And it must be remembered that the “best” science included work
that proved incorrect as new discoveries were made.
Flowers 15
But Wesley’s science, or at least his theological interpretation of the natural
world, can also be a stumbling block to acceptance of a Wesleyan approach to
environmental stewardship. One must, therefore, read Wesley with an understanding of
the world of the 18th century. Contemporary science tells us that creation has always
been a “groaning creation.” However, destructive events in this “groaning creation”
frequently are caused by human ignorance and/or arrogance in the development of
naturally disturbed areas, accompanied by efforts to forcibly control or alter the natural
system.cxii
Wesley, then, bridges the scientific and the theological. He was an ecologist,
“trying to place ecological reflection in the context of the history of sin, the divine-human
reconciliation and the eschatological vision of general deliverance,”cxiii and a theologian
whose “theological perspective is conducive to an ecological ethic,” combining grace
with “responsible human willing.”cxiv Can Wesley serve as a model for ecological and
theological reflection in the twenty-first century? One of the strengths of the Wesleyan
theology, including his environmental theology, is that it was an ecumenical project.cxv
But to be used as a model will require a change of heart and mind, even in Wesley’s
closest theological descendants.
Notes
Portions of this work will appear more fully in ‘Inward and Outward Health’: John Wesley’s Holistic
Concept of Medical Science, the Environment and Holy Living, D. Madden (ed.), Epworth Press: in press.
i
Lynn White, Jr., “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” Science 155 (1967): 1203-
1207.
ii
E.g., John Barr, ed., The Environmental Handbook (London: Ballantine/Friends of the Earth,
1971), 3-16; R.J. Berry (ed.), The Care of Creation: Focusing Concern and Action (Downers Grove, IL:
Flowers 16
InterVarsity Press, 2000), 31-42; Lynn White, Jr., “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,”
http://www.siena.edu/ellard/historical roots of our ecologic.htm.
E.g. Lynn White, Jr., “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” Journal of the American
Scientific Affiliation 21 (1969): 42-43.
iii
Ben A. Minteer and Robert E. Manning, “An Appraisal of the Critique of Anthropocentrism and
Three Lesser Known Themes in Lynn White’s ‘The Historical roots of our Ecologic Crisis’,” Organization
and Environment 18 (2005): 163.
iv
v
Alister McGrath, The Reenchantment of Nature: The Denial of Religion and the Ecological
Crisis (New York, NY: Doubleday/Galilee, 2003), xv.
vi
Minteer and Manning, “An Appraisal,” 163.
vii
E.g. Charles L. Harper, Environment and Society: Human Perspective on Environmental Issues,
3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2004), 44-45.
viii
McGrath, The Reenchantment of Nature, 30; H. Barnette, The Church and the Ecological Crisis
(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972), 28ff; John Richardson, “The Spiritual
Roots of our Ecological Crisis - Was Lynn White Right?”
http://www.j.p.richardson.btinternet.co.uk/lynnwhite/html (November, 1998).
E.g. Minteer and Manning, “An Appraisal,” 163-176; Elspeth Whitney, “Lynn White,
Ecotheology, and History,” Environmental Ethics 15, No. 2 (Summer, 1993):151-169; Wayne Frair, E.S.
Feenstra, and Donald W. Munro, “Comments on ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,’”Journal of
the American Scientific Affiliation 21(June 1969): 43-47; Richard Randolph and Jeremy Yunt,
Environmental Ethics and Theology, http://www.counterbalance.net/enviro/enviro-print.html; Robert A.
Sirico, “The New Spirituality,” The New York Times Magazine, November 23, 1997,
http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/environment/spirituality/index.html
ix
x
E.g. Ian G. Barbour (ed.), Western Man and Environmental Ethics: Attitudes Toward Nature and
Technology (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1973); Ken Gnanakan, God’s World: A
Theology of the Environment (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1999); Berry (ed.),
The Care of Creation.
xi
E.g. Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993, 20-21, 29ff.; Douglas John Hall, Imaging God: Dominion as
Stewardship (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986), 24, 61ff, 186; Sally McFague,
“An Ecological Christology: Does Christianity Have It?” in Christianity and Ecology: Seeking the WellBeing of Earth and Human, eds. Dieter T. Hessel and Rosemary Radford Ruether (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2000), 36ff; James A. Nash, Loving Nature: Ecological Integrity and Christian
Responsibility (Nashville TN: Abingdon Press, 1991),, 72ff; R.J. Berry (ed.), The Care of Creation:
Focusing Concern and Action (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 17-22.
xii
E. Calvin Beisner, Where Garden Meets Wilderness: Evangelical Entry into the Environmental
Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 166-167.
xiii
Richard T. Wright, “Tearing Down the Green: Environmental Backlash in the Evangelical SubCulture,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 47 (June 1955), 82.
xiv
Tony Campolo, How to Rescue the Earth Without Worshipping Nature (Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson, Publishers, 1992), 3-4.
Flowers 17
xv
James Lovelock, Gaia: The Practical Science of Planetary Medicine (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000).
xvi
Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992).
Arne Naess, “The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement,” Inquiry 16 (1973): 95100. Beisner contends that the Animal Rights movement is a natural extension of “deep ecology.”
xvii
xviii
An exception is Nash (Loving Nature, 126-129), who devotes several pages to a discussion to
Wesley's sermon, “The General Deliverance.”
xix
John B. Cobb, Jr., Grace & Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today (Nashville, TN:
Abingdon Press, 1995): 7.
Sara Joan Miles, “From Being to Becoming: Science and Theology in the Eighteenth Century,”
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 43 (December, 1991): 222.
xx
There is precident for this position: Oliver A. Beckerlegge, “John Wesley as Hymn-book
Editor,” in The Works of John Wesley. Volume 7. A Collection of Hymns for the Use of The People Called
Methodists, ed. Franz Hildebrandt and Oliver A. Beckerlegge, 56.
xxi
xxii
William C. S. Pellowe, “Wesley’s Use of Science,” Methodist Review 110 (May, 1927): 394-
395.
Many of these originating from A. D. White’s History of the Warfare of Science with Theology
in Christendom (New York, Appleton and Co., 1897); J. W. Haas, Jr., “John Wesley’s Views on Science
and Christianity: An Examination of the Charge of Antiscience,” Church History 63.3 (September, 1994):
386.
xxiii
xxiv
J. W. Haas, Jr., “John Wesley’s Vision of Science in the Service of Christ,” Perspectives on
Science and Christian Faith 47 (December, 1995): 236.
xxv
Haas, “John Wesley’s Vision of Science in the Service of Christ,” 242.
John W. Haas, Jr., “Eighteenth Century Evangelical Responses to Science: John Wesley’s
Enduring Legacy,” Science and Christian Belief 6 (1994): 84.
xxvi
xxvii
Haas, “Eighteenth Century Evangelical Responses to Science,” 100.
xxviii
Frank W. Collier, John Wesley Among the Scientists (New York: The Abingdon Press, 1928),
134-135.
xxix
John Wesley, The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., July 21, 1758, Standard Edition, 8
vols, Nehemiah Curnock, ed. (London: The Epworth Press, 1909-1916), Vol. IV, 279; Wesley, Journal,
Nov. 12, 1767, Vol. V, 238.
xxx
John Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation or A Compendium of Natural
Philosophy containing an Abridgment of that Beautiful Work, “The Contemplation of Nature,” by Mr.
Robert Bonnet, of Geneva also An Extract from Mr. Deuten’s Inquiry into the Origin of the ‘Discoveries
Attributed to the Ancients,’ 2 Vols., (Philadelphia: Jonathan Pounder, 1816); The Survey was an
abstraction of John Buddoeus’ Elementa Philosophiae practicae et theoreticae (1703) and notes from John
Ray’s Wisdom of God in the Creation (1691), William Derham’s Physico and Astrothrology (1713),
Bernard Niewentyt’s Religious Philospher (1715), and Cotton Mather’s Christian Philosopher (1721). It
Flowers 18
was first published in 1763 in two volumes, and expanded to five in the third (1777) edition. In this and
subsequent editions, Wesley included an abridgement of Bonnet’s (1764) The Contemplation of Nature and
an extract of Deutens’ Inquiry into the Origin of the “Discoveries Attributed to the Moderns.” These
contents were published in numerous English and American editions, and were later revised by R. Mudie to
update the scientific content to agree with current scientific knowledge (John Wesley and Robert Mudie, A
Compendium of Natural Philosophy Being A Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation, Three Vols.
[London: Thomas Tegg and Son, 1836]).
xxxi
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §III.II.1, Vol. I, 350.
xxxii
Wesley, Journal, June 3, 1790, Vol. VIII, 68.
xxxiii
Wesley, Journal, August 29, 1748, Vol. III, 375.
xxxiv
Wesley, Journal, April 25, 1752, Vol. IV, 22.
xxxv
Neil A. Campbell, Biology, 4th ed. (Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co.,
1996), 1062.
xxxvi
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God; Contemplation, §V.8, Vol. II, 225ff; §II.VI.9, Vol. I,
306; §III.II.7, Vol. I, 364-465.
xxxvii
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §IV.I.15, Vol. I, 466.
xxxviii
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §II.VI.5, Vol. I, 302-303.
xxxix
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §III.II.6, Vol. I, 359ff.
xl
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §III.II.7, Vol. I, 366.
xli
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §III.II.7, Vol. I, 365.
xlii
Campbell, Biology, 1108-1109; Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §II.VI.7, Vol. I, 304.
xliii
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §III.I.19, Vol. I, 334.
xliv
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §III.I.19, Vol. I, 330.
xlv
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §III.II.7, Vol. I, 366.
xlvi
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §IV.III.10, Vol. II, 184-185.
xlvii
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §III.II.7, Vol. I, 368.
xlviii
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §II.VI.1, Vol. I, 298.
xlix
He did note, however, the habitat restriction of the “roe-buck” to the highlands of Scotland;
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §II.I.10, Vol. I, 137-138.
l
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §V.III.10, Vol. II, 185.
li
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §III.II.8.III, Vol. I, 374-375.
lii
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God; Contemplation, §V.10, Vol. II, 226.
Flowers 19
liii
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §III.II.1, Vol. I, 350.
liv
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §II.VI.3, Vol. I, 300-301; Wesley would later expand
on this in his sermon, “The General Deliverance.”
lv
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §II.VI,6, Vol. I, 303-304.
lvi
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §II.VI.4, Vol. I, 302.
lvii
Wesley, Journal, March 31, 1788, Vol. VII, 371.
lviii
Wesley, Journal, April 5, 1790, Vol. VIII, 57-58.
lix
Wesley, Journal, December 31, 1764, Vol. V, 104.
lx
Wesley, Journal, July 3, 1769, Vol. V, 326.
lxi
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, Intro., Vol I, xii.
lxii
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §II.VI.9, Vol. I, 308.
lxiii
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §III.II.8.III, Vol. I, 373.
lxiv
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §III.II.7, Vol. I, 365.
lxv
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §III.II.8.II, Vol. I, 372.
lxvi
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §II.VI.10, Vol. I, 310.
lxvii
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §II.VI.9, Vol. I, 306.
lxviii
Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God, §III.II.8.V, Vol. I, 382.
lxix
John Wesley, “On Divine Providence,” Sermon 67, §8, Works of John Wesley, 12 vols
(London: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room, 1872. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002), Vol. 6,
313-325; John Wesley, “God’s Approbation of His Works,” Sermon 56, §1,2, WJW, Vol. 6, 206-207;
Wesley, “The General Deliverance,” Sermon 60, §I.1, JWW, Vol. 6, 424.
Wesley, “The Wisdom of God’s Counsels,” Sermon 68, §2, WJW, Vol. 6, 325; Wesley, A
Survey of the Wisdom of God, §III.II.8.I, Vol. I, 371.
lxx
lxxi
Wesley, “God’s Approbation,” §I.14, WJW Vol. 6, 213.
lxxii
John Wesley, “Spiritual Worship,” Sermon 77, §I.2, I.3, WJW, Vol. 6, 426.
lxxiii
Wesley, “To Dr. Conyers Middleton,” (Jan. 4, 1739) §VI.I.12, WJW, Vol. 10, 70.
lxxiv
Wesley, “Spiritual Worship,” §I.4, WJW Vol. 6, 426.
Wesley, “Upon our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, Discourse III,” Sermon 23, §I.6, WJW, Vol.
5, 281; Wesley, “On the Omnipresence of God,” Sermon 111, §II.1, WJW, Vol. 7, 240; Wesley, “Upon our
Lord’s Sermon on the Mount III,” §I.11 WJW Vol. 5, 283; John Wesley, “Upon our Lord’s Sermon on the
Mount, Discourse VI,” Sermon 26, §III.7, WJW, Vol. 5, 335.
lxxv
Flowers 20
lxxvi
Wesley, Journal, March 17, 1756, Vol. IV, 152.
lxxvii
Particularly the meaning of the word “dominion” in Genesis 1:28.
lxxviii
Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament, Genesis 1:28.
lxxix
Wesley, “The General Deliverance,” §I.3, WJW Vol. 6, 243-244; Nash, Loving Nature, 103.
lxxx
Wesley, “The General Deliverance,” §I.5 WJW Vol. 6, 244.
lxxxi
Wesley, “The General Deliverance,” §1 WJW Vol. 6, 241.
lxxxii
Michael Lodahl, God of Nature and of Grace: Reading the World in a Wesleyan Way
(Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books/Abingdon Press, 2003), 197; Wesley, “The General Deliverance,”
§III.5, WJW, Vol. 6, 250.
lxxxiii
Wesley, “God’s Approbation of His Works, §II.1, WJW Vol. 6, 213; Wesley, “The General
Deliverance,” §2 WJW Vol. 6, 242.
lxxxiv
Wesley, “God’s Approbation of His Works,” §II.3, WJW Vol. 6, 214-215.
lxxxv
Wesley, “The General Deliverance,” §II.6 WJW Vol. 6, 247-248.
Wesley, “Minutes of Several Conversations between the Rev. Mr. Wesley and others from
the year 1744 to the year 1789,” Q. 37, WJW, Vol. 8, 317, 318.
lxxxvi
lxxxvii
Edward Royle, Modern Britain: A Social History 1750-1985 (London: Edward
Arnold/Hodder & Stoughton, 1987): 24.
lxxxviii
N. J. G. Pounds, The Culture of the English People: Iron Age to the Industrial Revolution
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994): 369-371.
Pounds, The Culture of the English People, 110-111; Bjorn Lomborg, “Take a Deep
Breath…Air Quality is Getting Better,” Guardian Unlimited, Wednesday, August 15, 2001,
www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4239182-110970,00.html.
lxxxix
Theodore Runyan, The New Creation: John Wesley’s Theology Today (Nashville, TN:
Abingdon Press, 1998): 200.
xc
xci
Wesley, “God’s Approbation,” §I.3-I.5, WJW Vol. 6, 208-209.
xcii
Wesley, “The Scripture Way of Salvation,” Sermon 43, §I.4, WJW, Vol. 6, 45; Theodore
Runyan, “The New Creation: The Wesleyan Distinctive,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 31 No. 2 (Fall,
1996): 7
Wesley, “The Image of God,” §III.1-2, in Albert C. Outler & Richard P Heitzenrater, eds.,
John Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1991), 19.
xciii
xciv
Wesley, “Marks of the New Birth,” Sermon 18, §III.3, III.5, WJW, Vol. 5, 219, 220.
Wesley, “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection,” §18, §28, WJW, Vol. 11, 394, 444; Wesley,
“A Plain Account of Christian Perfection,” §15 (6), WJW Vol. 11, 385. This was reprinted from the
Preface of the third volume of Hymns and Sacred Poems, 1742.
xcv
Flowers 21
xcvi
Lodahl, God of Nature and of Grace, 205.
xcvii
Wesley, Journal, February 8, 1750, Vol. III, 453; Wesley, Journal, March 8, 1750, Vol. III,
456; Wesley, Journal, May 18, 1757, Vol. IV, 211-212; Wesley, Journal, November 2, 1763, Vol. V, 3940; Wesley, Journal, December 7, 1771, Vol. V, 439-440; Wesley, Journal, June 2, 1755, Vol. IV, 119120; Wesley, “Serious Thoughts Occasioned by The Late Earthquake at Lisbon,” WJW, Vol. 11, 5; Wesley,
Journal, July 5, 1773, Vol. V, 517.
xcviii
Wesley, “The New Creation,” Sermon 64, §8, §11, §12, §14, §17, WJW, Vol. 6, 289-295; [cf.
“God’s Approbation of His Works,”§I.4-6,§I.12].
xcix
c
Wesley, “The General Spread of the Gospel,” Sermon 63, §27 WJW, Vol. 6, 288.
Wesley, “The Good Steward,” Sermon 51, §I.1, WJW, Vol. 6, 137.
Randy L. Maddox, “’Celebrating the Whole Wesley’: A Legacy for Contemporary Wesleyans,”
Methodist History 43 No. 2 (January 2005): 86.
ci
Wesley, “God’s Love to Fallen Man,”§4, WJW, Vol. 6, 233; Maddox, “’Celebrating the Whole
Wesley,’” 87.
cii
ciii
Wesley, “The General Deliverance,” §III.3, WJW 6, 249; Wesley further suggested that because
God will make amends for animal suffering (Wesley, “The General Deliverance,” §III.5, WJW 6, 250), he
might also compensate the pain and suffering inflicted by fallen humanity by raising the animals to the
level of created humanity with its ability to relate to God (Wesley, “The General Deliverance,” §III.6, WJW
6, 250).
civ
Wesley, Journal, July 15, 1756, Vol. IV, 176. Included in this letter were the very explicit
words, “If tenderness, mercy and compassion to the brute creatures were impressed upon the infant breast,
and conducted into action according to its little power, would it not be confirmed in the human
heart?…Does not experience show the sad effects of a contrary education?”; John Wesley, “On the
Education of Children,” Sermon 95, §14, §25 WJW Vol. 7, 91, 98.
cv
R. Southey, Life of Wesley, Vol. II (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1847), 88, cited in Haas,
“Eighteenth Century Evangelical Responses,” 96,98.
cvi
Wesley, Journal, May 24 1762, Vol. IV, 504.
cvii
Wesley, Journal, July 16, 1756, Vol. IV, 175.
cviii
Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the Old Testament, Genesis 2:4-7; Robert V. Rakestraw, “The
Contribution of John Wesley Toward an Ethic of Nature,” The Drew Gateway 56 (1986): 19.
John Wesley, ed., “Husbandry Spiritualized or, the Heavenly Use of Earthly Things,” by John
Flavel, in A Christian Library: Consisting of Extracts from and Abridgements of the Choicest Pieces of
Practical Divinity Which Have Been Published in the English Tongue. 2nd ed., Vol. 27: 135-279,
http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/christian_library/vol27/CL27 Part4.htm.
cix
cx
Robert Schofield, “John Wesley and Science in 18th Century England,” Isis 44 (1953): 338.
cxi
Schofield, “Wesley and Science,” 337.
cxii
Keith Miller, Natural Hazards: Challenges to the Creation Mandate of Dominion?”
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 53, No. 3 (September, 2001): 185.
Flowers 22
Thomas C. Oden, John Wesley’s Scriptural Christianity: A Plain Exposition of His Teaching
on Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 129-130.
cxiii
Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville, TN:
Abingdon/Kingswood, 1994), 247.
cxiv
cxv
Runyan, “The New Creation,” 6.