Natural Branches
Christian Stewardship and Modern
Environmentalism
by Greg Davies
Dr. Norman Wirzba, Advisor
September 2011
Abstract
Given both the quantity and quality of research on the global ecologic crisis, we no longer need
to find scientific justification for environmental remediation. The question now focuses on the
kinds of actions we can take to meaningfully address ecological harms. People from all
backgrounds offer their time, money, and expertise to combat environmental degradation, but
the scope of the problem always requires greater numbers of willing participants. However,
one group of people sometimes finds it difficult to contribute to a call to protect the Earth:
Christians occasionally face accusations that the doctrines and teachings of their church caused
the ecological crisis in the first place. They describe Christianity as a religion focused solely on
human beings, a faith that teaches us that God gave the world to mankind to use and abuse as we
please, and ultimately a religion that focuses on life away from the material earth after death.
Not all environmentalists hold such dark views of Christianity, but Christianity is sufficiently
suspect within environmentalist circles to justify closer examinations of the faith.
This project focuses on the scripture and doctrines of the early Christian Church to determine
whether Christian teachings support environmental destruction. The project relies on research
from leading biblical scholars, as well as primary sources both from the Bible and early Church
theologians. A summary of Lynn White's classic essay, The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic
Crisis, represents the majority of environmentalist attacks on Christianity, with the analyses of
scripture and doctrine addressing the criticisms.
The research suggests that Lynn White and subsequent detractors of Christianity within the
environmental movement misinterpret the fundamental teachings of scripture and doctrine that
underlie the modern Church. Conscientious attention to biblical and early theological texts
reveals a religion focused on God, not on humanity. Church doctrine ultimately fosters a sense
of responsibility towards the Earth, rather than a sense of entitlement. White and his successors
mistakenly conflate Christian doctrine with the actions of nominal Christians. Too often, some
people overlook the teachings and works of Christians that support creation stewardship and
focus instead on the harms caused by individuals and communities who call themselves
"Christian." A clarification of Christian beliefs and theologies can address the animosity that
some environmentalists feel towards communities of faith and allow collaboration in the global
efforts to remediate environmental damages.
Master's Project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in the
Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University September 2011
2
Introduction
My earliest experiences with Christianity meeting environmentalism were not hopeful. I
started at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment in August of 2008, intent on
completing the two-year Master of Environmental Management degree. By the end of my first
year, for a wild variety of reasons, I added a Master of Theological Studies degree at Duke
Divinity School. The mix of theology and ecology, something I first considered only a few
weeks before my acceptance at Duke Divinity, brought my environmentalism into a focus I
lacked during my first year at the Nic School.
I (perhaps naively) thought that the combination of Earth and faith would excite my
classmates as much as it excited me. Perhaps not enough to follow me to Duke Divinity, but I at
least assumed that they would acknowledge the wonderful potential of pursuing
environmentalism from a perspective of faith. To be sure, some did. But others expressed a
disdain for all things Christian that made me briefly wonder if I had made a mistake. I did not
doubt my faith, but rather the wisdom of trying to publically combine it with my ecological
passions. Most people, though, supported my new academic career to some degree.
As I reflected on the reactions to environmentalism presented in a Christian context, I
realized that so much of the antagonism I experienced came from misunderstandings of Christian
teachings. My newly-won perspective from Duke Divinity showed me that my own ignorance of
Christianity would limit my ability to combine theology and ecology. I use what I learn at Duke
Divinity to refine my ecological perspective, reinforcing my drive to protect the environment for
both practical and especially moral reasons.
My paper is basically an admission of my ignorance and the research I did to correct it. I
have already spent two years at Duke Divinity trying to address my misunderstandings of the
3
faith. I intend to outline what I learned about Christianity that reveals it as a faith thoroughly
concerned with the inherent worth of the created world. I begin with Lynn White’s essay, The
Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, as a cornerstone of anti-Christian sentiments in modern
environmentalism. I then examine a survey of biblical texts, from both the Old and New
Testaments, to demonstrate the most basic potential of the Bible to support stewardship efforts.
Finally, I highlight two of the Christian Church’s earliest theologians and their unabashed respect
for the Earth as a component of God’s works and revelation to mankind.
I am by no means qualified to offer a comprehensive examination of Christianity’s views
on the worth of God’s creation. I intend to demonstrate that misunderstandings of Christian
teachings inappropriately depict the faith as a hindrance to effective environmental stewardship.
No one exemplifies the anti-environment views of Christianity better than Lynn White.
The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, by Lynn White, Jr.
Lynn White wrote what is perhaps the most damning indictment of Christianity's
relationship to the ecological crisis. Cited by countless subsequent articles and books, The
Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis constitutes a systematic attack on Christianity's history
and especially presents White’s accusations of the Church’s increasingly damaging attitudes
towards the environment. I begin with a discussion of Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis as
a useful summary of the sort of antagonism and suspicion I encountered when I began my efforts
to link Christianity and environmental protection in my studies. I do not intend to refute White's
arguments directly; I summarize his conclusions as the foundation for my paper, and
subsequently address them as I argue for the usefulness of Christian tradition in environmental
stewardship.
4
White begins with a brief overview of the global ecological crisis as well as some of the
historical ideologies and events that contributed to our current situation. He discusses the rise of
scientific thought and some of the technological advances that change mankind's relationship to
the Earth, most notably the plow.1 White highlights a link between technological advances like
the plow, which he describes as inherently manipulative, and the prevailing beliefs and attitudes
of the time; both of which, he says, derive from, “… deeply conditioned …beliefs about our
nature and destiny—that is, by religion.”2 Specifically, White points out what he sees as a
simultaneous rise in both the ideologies and technologies that underlie the environmental crisis:
“Our daily habits of action... are dominated by an implicit faith in perpetual progress which was
unknown either to Greco-Roman antiquity or to the Orient. It is rooted in, and is indefensible
apart from, Judeo-Christian teleology.”3 In other words, White sees the justification for
widespread environmental destruction beginning in Christian contexts, outside of the beliefs and
actions of any previous peoples.
White faults many Christian teachings for establishing and widening the gap between
mankind and nature. Drawing from Genesis 2:19-20, he says, “man named all the animals, thus
establishing his dominance over them. God planned all this explicitly for man's benefit and rule:
no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man's purposes.” Shortly
thereafter, White states emphatically that, “Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the
world has seen.” 4 Furthermore, he blames not only Christianity's teachings, but the actions of the
early church that saw the decline and eventual elimination of Earth-centered religions like
paganism: “By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a
1
White, 1205.
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
2
5
mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects.”5 In every stage of Christian history,
events came together to weaken mankind's sense of obligation towards nature.
Ultimately, White concludes:
“[As] we now recognize, somewhat over a century ago science and technology— hitherto
quite separate activities—joined to give mankind powers which, to judge by many of ecological
effects, are out of control. If so, Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt... [Since our] science and
technology have grown out of Christian attitudes towards man's relation to nature which are almost
universally held not only by Christians and neo-Christians but also by those who fondly regard
themselves as post-Christians.”6
White suggests that even as many people move into a “post-Christian” sensibility, the
tremendous damage done by Christianity in the past remains the indelible foundation of Western
ideologies. The merger of science, technology, and human attitudes towards nature took place
within a Christian system.
Although The Historic Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis does not include every possible
condemnation of Christianity’s impact on the environment, I include it in my project because it
articulates the most significant attacks I hear as an environmentalist Christian. I hope that, by the
end of the paper, I demonstrate that Lynn White presents a misconstrued and overly-simplistic
view of both the Christian church and its relationship to the environmental crisis. Christianity has
great potential to teach us about the need to care for the Earth. Let us start at the beginning.
Genesis 1
Shallow and out-of-context readings make Genesis a thoroughly abused book. No verse
draws greater attention in environmental circles than Genesis 1:28: “God blessed them, and God
said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over
the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the
5
6
Ibid.
Ibid., 1206.
6
earth.”7 If we take Genesis 1:28 in the common understanding of mainline environmentalists,
particularly those holding Lynn White’s view of Christianity, the verse reads something like:
“God gave them his full approval, then said, ‘I have made a beautiful new world for you. I want
you and all future generations to squeeze every last drop out of it, doing whatever you like to the
earth, the plants, the animals, anything you can find. It's yours: do with it what you will!’ And it
was so.” This seems unlikely. A cursory glance through the rest of the Bible reveals a God fully
committed to the orderly instruction of human beings; most famously, perhaps, are the 10
Commandments from Exodus 20 and the similar verses of Deuteronomy 5. Additionally, the
book of Leviticus deals at great length with the rules and obligations concerning proper worship
and just social relationships, from feeding the poor and defending the weak in Lev 19, to proper
treatment of the land and animals in Lev 25. Clearly, Genesis exists in a context of books
describing an orderly God concerned with right relations between people and the creation; the
suggestion that God gave us the world without rules or directions defies the myriad teachings of
the books following Genesis. We can then approach the opening chapters of Genesis as the
beginning of God's guidance towards proper order through the first command humankind ever
received: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the
fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the
earth.”8 The first hints of God’s intended ordering of creation appear in Gen 1:28.
Interestingly, the Leviticus laws defining clean and unclean foods can guide us in the
interpretation of Genesis 1. Ellen Davis draws a compelling line between the initial ordering of
creation in Genesis 1, the commandments given to Noah after the flood concerning the use of
7
8
Genesis 1:28
Ibid.
7
animals for food , and the later eating foods given to the Israelites in Leviticus.9 Davis sees
significance in the repetition of the phrase “on the Earth,” appearing first in Genesis and later in
Leviticus: as Davis translates, “every animal that creeps on the earth” (Gen 1:28) and “…
YHWH spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them: ‘Speak to the Israelites, saying: This is the
animal you may eat out of all the domestic beasts that are on the Earth…” 10 For Davis, the
Leviticus food codes serve both to clarify and reinforce the initial ordering of creation from
Genesis 1. Leviticus clarifies the Genesis text by placing it in a post-flood context, but further
reinforces the structure laid out in Genesis by reminding the Israelites that God expects a careful
and respectful relationship between humankind and the domestic beasts.11 We thus see that God
repeatedly places emphasis on proper relationships between mankind and creation each time that
he must clarify his rules: from humanity's first days in Genesis 1, to humanity's new life after
flood, to the structure order of Israelite life addressed in Leviticus. We must not read Gen 1:28 as
a carte blanche from God to humanity, giving us free reign within creation to do as we please.
Rather, the continuing narrative structures and order that go well beyond Genesis 1 suggest that
God put limits on our actions within creation from the beginning.
Instead of a simple permission to use and, implicitly, abuse all that the Earth affords us,
what more specific command might Gen 1:28 contain? To begin, we must examine the infamous
words “dominion” and “subdue” from Genesis 1:28. Current use of the word “dominion” often
connotes authoritarian control, manipulation, and oppression. In the Genesis context, however,
“dominion” has a highly nuanced meaning: that of a king conferring kingly offices to trusted
servants. As Terence Fretheim argues, “The image functions to mirror God to the world, to be
9
Cf. Gen 6:1-17; Lev 11.
Davis, 95-96.
11
Ibid., 96.
10
8
God as God would be to the non-human, to be an extension of God’s own dominion.”12 Thus, we
must begin with an understanding of Genesis 1:28, using language of dominion and subjugation,
in the context of a delegation of responsibility, not the mere presentation of a gift. If God charges
us to hold dominion over the Earth as demonstrated by his example, we must treat the Earth as
God treats us. Diane Lipsett defends the use of “dominion” in Genesis as, “[creating] a context of
orderliness and beneficence that seems to mitigate against such connotations [of abuse].”13
Scripture teaches us that God is just, and therefore a command to exercise dominion suggests a
call for justice in our actions.14 Walter Brueggemann finds compelling evidence of a proper
dominion from the Gospels: “A Christian understanding of dominion must be discerned in the
way of Jesus of Nazareth (cf. Mark 10:43-44). The one who rules is the one who serves.
Lordship means servanthood.”15 As rulers, God expects us to serve and to sacrifice for the good
of the domain that we rule in his name. Fretheim draws parallels from verses such as Ezekiel
34:1-4, where God admonishes earthly rulers for their exploitation of their subjects.16 We have a
model for dominion, based on God’s justice, that precludes abuse and manipulation as part of the
divine mandate to “have dominion.”
Richard Bauckham provides a vital caveat to the use of God's dominion over creation as a
model for human dominion on Earth. As Bauckham says:
“…we should add that human dominion is unlike God's role in very significant other respects: it is
restricted, it is exercised within rather than over creation, it may not aspire to divine omnipotence, and, perhaps
above all, it is exercised in relation to fellow-creatures.”17
12
Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, Vol. 1, New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 345.
Cf. Zec 9:10; Mic 4:7-8
13
B. Diane Lipsett, Dominion, Vol. 2, New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007),
157.
Cf. Ps. 8:6; Wis 9:2; Sir 17:4
14
Cf. Ps 145:17
15
Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, Vol. 1, Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 32-33.
16
17
Fretheim, 346.
Bauckham, 31.
9
We must acknowledge the need for limitations to avoid creating a justification for the kind of
destructive exploitation that defines the modern environmental crisis. Bauckham particularly
emphasizes that we must share the Earth with the community of our fellow creatures. The most
important constraint on our right to dominion of the Earth rests in our creatureliness: “Our
creation in the image of God and the unique dominion given to us do not abolish our
fundamental community with other creatures.”18 Dominion has limitations in the human context;
we emulate God's dominion, we do not replicate it.
As with our sense of “dominion,” the word “subdue” often has negative connotations in
contemporary use that ancient writers did not intend. As mentioned previously, God brings both
justice and order to Creation. Just as “dominion” can imply justice, “subdue” can imply an
ordering of the world in keeping with God’s design. When we subdue something wild, we hold
it, calm it, and restore it to its proper place and condition. In the same way, God both intends for
us to subdue disorder within creation and, in the texts following Genesis, to restore us to a proper
relationship with him. A difference between biblical translations can clarify the meaning of
“subdue”: the King James Bible translates Philippians 3:21 as, “Who shall change our vile body,
that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby [God] is
able even to subdue all things unto himself.” The NRSV, by contrasts, translates “subdue all
things unto himself” as “to make all things subject to himself.” God creates order in subduing
humanity, but does not do so through wanton exploitation and destruction; he wants to redeem
our souls and our bodies to restore proper relationships.19 Going further, God does not intend to
undo the Earth; rather, he seeks to subdue it, to bring order to it, in part through humanity’s
actions (the “new heavens and new earth”: e.g. Isa 65:17, 66:22; Rev 21:1-5). God intends for
18
19
Ibid.
Cf. Ps 145:17.
10
humankind to participate in the dynamic work of creation, continuing what God started in the
first seven days of the world’s existence. God blessed us in the beginning, and his blessing
makes us agents of the ongoing Creation; we are beings with sufficient capacity to enact God’s
will on Earth.20 As servants invested with the authority to continue God’s work in the world, we
have an obligation to rely on God’s demonstration of proper rule and order to do our work on his
behalf. God exemplifies just care of God’s creatures, and thus we work for “care giving, even
nurturing, not exploitation” of God’s Creation.21
The interrelated problems of overpopulation and environmental damage merit brief
attention in light of the command to “Be fruitful and multiply” in Genesis 1:28. God’s delegation
of power to us for the tending of the world comes with a command to act as good managers and
stewards. In order for us to affect the necessary work on our world, we need some autonomy to
make choices on our own, and we need more than the original two people God placed in the
garden. Therefore, the command to “Be fruitful and multiply” has two meanings. First, among
other powers and responsibilities, God delegated to humans the means to control our own
reproduction. Second, God wants us to procreate so that we have enough people to care for his
creation. Nowhere does God command us to reproduce ad infinitum such that every available
square foot of space on Earth has a person on it.22 With authority comes an expectation of
sensibility, and a view of Genesis 1:28 as an order to submerge the Earth under a thick layer of
human beings makes little biblical sense.
Genesis 2
20
Fretheim, 347.
Ibid.
22
Ibid, 346.
21
11
Genesis 2 continues some of the themes introduced in the first chapter, presenting a more
nuanced examination of humanity’s purpose as God completes the first creation week. The
second chapter begins with a sense of gardening: “In the day that the Lord God made the earth
and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet
sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till
the ground.”23 Fretheim points to a purposeful relationship between mankind and the rain in
God’s design.24 Genesis 2 acknowledges that the Earth cannot support life, and therefore cannot
fulfill God’s purposes, if the Earth itself does not provide resources for cultivation; humans
cannot, of their own will, make the Earth produce life or resources. Genesis 2:4-5 reinforces the
image of a garden given over to gardeners to tend and maintain. Humanity neither created the
world nor received the world from God as a free gift. God made the world as a garden for
humankind, to till and to keep, working with the resources the earth provides to subdue creation,
as Genesis 1 makes clear. We hold responsibility “not simply for maintenance and preservation,
but for intra-creational development.”25 We are God’s agents in the ongoing creation, serving as
assistants to the Creator. Any sense of entitlement to the Earth’s resources for our own luxury or
greed contradicts the depth of the blessing and trust that Genesis conveys.
Ellen Davis explores the question of mankind's attitudes towards the Earth by examining
the nature of work and worship. She begins by addressing the Hebrew terms from Gen 2:15 that
typically translate as “to till.” Davis points out that the agricultural connotations of the word
“till” misses the fundamental meaning of the original Hebrew which translates most closely as
“to work.” Davis places the passage in the context of soil and garden to end with the translation
23
Genesis 2:4-5
Fretheim, 349.
25
Ibíd.
24
12
“to work with.”26 Thus, Gen 2:15 translates as “The Lord God took the man and put him in the
garden of Eden to work with it and keep it.”27 Davis suggests that we can take two meanings
from the idea of working with the soil: we work with the soil as provided by God to raise our
food, but we may also “view the human task as working for the garden soil, serving its needs.”28
Here, a caregiver mentality augments and refines the notion of Christian stewardship towards the
land.
Davis then addresses the word connected with “to till” in Gen 2:15, commonly translated
as “to keep.” She points out that the second Hebrew verb typically means “keep” in the sense of
keeping a flock, a household, or a child; nowhere else in the Bible does the Hebrew verb
translated as “to keep” apply to the land. Davis goes farther, drawing on texts that use “keep” to
mean “observe,” such as to observe the way the world works and the order, both structural and
moral, that God imposes on creation.29 Taken together, then, the seemingly simply rendering of
Gen 2:15 takes on meaning far deeper than agricultural tasks. God gave us the Earth to work
with our hands, to serve as faithful stewards, and to observe for God's revelation. To read the
passage in the common English vocabulary certainly invites a sense of control and archaic
manipulation. However, the ancient authors knew both their work and their words, and they
communicate God's Word to us with a far richer meaning than we sometimes realize.
Genesis 3
The other great criticism of Genesis focuses on the assertion that the text portrays nature
as an enemy of mankind. Gen 3:14-19 describe God’s reaction to discovering that Adam and Eve
26
Davis, 29.
based on the NRSV, emphasis added
28
Davis, 29.
29
Davis, 30. (e.g. Ps 107: 43; Isa 42:20; Hos 12:7; Exo 31:13)
27
13
violated his prohibition against eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Two verses in particular,
Gen 3:17-18, receive considerable attention:
“cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;”
Thus isolated, the text suggests the advent of a conflict between humanity and nature. In short,
nature becomes an evil in humankind’s fight for existence. The Fall crippled the natural order,
pitting the elements of the once-harmonious creation against each other. The ground itself now
resists our efforts to survive. Our sin resulted in many hardships, including a mutual animosity
between humankind and the rest of creation.
Walter Brueggemann thoroughly rejects the notion that Gen 3 describes the emergence of
evil in nature, especially the idea of evil appearing as the snake and the subsequent “curse” laid
on the ground. Says Brueggemann:
“[T]he Old Testament is never interested in such an abstract issue. In fact, the narrative gives no
explanation for evil. There is no hint that the serpent is the embodiment of [the] principle of evil… [The Old
Testament] is not concerned with origins but with faithful responses and effective coping.”30
We misread Gen 3 if we take it to mean that the sin of Eden forever set us against the Earth; we
misread it if we treat the consequences of the Fall as the most important elements of the
narrative. Brueggemann points out that popular theology takes several elements from Gen 3,
including the origins of evil and death, or the introduction of human sex, and turns them into
issues “seen as things in themselves.”31 We see the consequences of the Fall as described in
Genesis and assume that the specific harms matter more than the underlying justification that
points us back to God’s will and desire for order. Brueggemann summarizes the inherent
misinterpretation of Gen 3:
30
31
Brueggemann, 41.
Ibid, 43.
14
“Like the people in this narrative, our concern is not finally the danger of sex, the origin of evil, the
appearance of death… the power of the fall [or, for our purposes, the relationship between humanity and the
Earth]. It is, rather, the summons of this calling God for us to be his creatures, to live in his world on his
terms.”32
We lose sight of the impact of Gen 3 if we treat it as a summary of events. The true weight of the
text rests in the description of our relationship to God, a relationship based on God’s proper and
loving rule.
Isaiah 1
Isaiah conveys a sense of God’s attitudes towards the created order outside of humanity.
Contrary to a belief that God remains indifferent to anything in creation but mankind, the prophet
demonstrates how deeply God regards the world in relation to the world’s human creatures. The
prophecy begins with a summons: “Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the Lord has
spoken: I reared children and brought them up, but they have rebelled against me. The ox knows
its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib; but Israel does not know, my people do not
understand.”33 God distinguishes between humankind, the rebellious and mocking children, and
the rest of creation, the creatures that know their master and respect their place. God’s call upon
creation as a witness illustrates two important points for Isaiah’s human audience: the world
continues proper worship and, more importantly, God’s created world, the heavens and the earth,
have the capacity to bear witness to God’s complaint. Indeed, Gene Tucker describes the opening
of Isaiah as the summons for a lawsuit.34 The stewards, the very people entrusted to care for
creation, stand in dereliction of their duties, both towards creation and God himself; the creation
suffers because of humanity’s actions. Of the three parties in the suit, God as prosecutor,
32
Ibid, 44.
Isaiah 1:2-3
34
Gene M Tucker, Isaiah, Vol. 6, New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 52.
33
15
humanity as plaintiff, and creation as witness, God and creation both have experienced wrongs at
humankind’s hands. Isa 1:3 thus demonstrates that God maintains a relationship with creation
outside of humanity, and furthermore affirms that creation is worthy of a place in the suit and
consideration for the wrongs it suffers.35 All of creation suffers if God’s agents abuse and exploit
the Earth in defiance of God’s will.
God then accuses humanity of willfully forgetting what they already know about him
through his revelation to them, and so ignoring the instructions God gave them for proper
worship and proper keeping of the Earth. Again, God calls on the rest of creation, pointing out
that, “The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib…”36 “To know” here means “to
acknowledge.”37 The creatures have inherent capacity to relate to God on his terms.38 Thus,
creation remains an independent entity outside mankind, since the ox and the donkey
acknowledge their master even when the stewards of creation forget. Isaiah continues a
distinction begun in Genesis: God made humanity creation’s stewards in partnership with
creation itself. God calls us to nurture and protect; he places value on creation, and thus enlists
humanity as shepherds. Bauckham points to a modern parallel of a failure to accept the role of
shepherd.”39 We cannot see the world as ours to manipulate and exploit as we please, for God
sees the world as an inherently valuable component of his dynamic creative action.
A theme particularly apropos to environmental stewardship arises in Isaiah 1:5-7. Here,
God not only condemns Israel’s sin, but makes plain the consequences of their sin, not only for
themselves, but for the world they inhabit:
35
Bauckham, 136.
Isaiah 1:2-3
37
Tucker, 53.
38
Bauckham, 136.
39
Ibid.
36
16
“Why do you seek further beatings? Why do you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick,
and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but
bruises and sores and bleeding wounds; they have not been drained, or bound up, or softened with oil.
Your country lies desolate, your cities are burned with fire; in your very presence aliens devour your
land; it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners.”40
Isaiah thus points to Israel’s culpability for damages endured both by them and their land. The
sin of the stewards causes harm to their wards. God calls for Israel to remember her obligations:
not only do the people defy God’s commandments at their own peril, but they abandon the needs
of the Earth and cause incalculable harm. Without our proper attention and behavior, the Earth
must suffer as well: everything suffers together in the created order when stewards fail in their
obligations.41
Finally, Isaiah 1 presents an injunction to the people of Israel, a command that will heal
their standing with God and address the harm to creation at the same time. Tucker points to vv.
16-18:
“Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my
eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead
for the widow. Come now, let us argue it out, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they
shall be like snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.”42
As Tucker suggests, “"Wash yourselves" is a rich and complex expression. It refers
simultaneously to the literal cleaning of bloody hands, to ritual purification, and to the
transformation of one's life: ‘cease to do evil.’”43 Just as any efforts towards remediation of the
environmental crisis must go beyond empty words, so too a change both in Israel’s attitudes and
actions must take place before any real improvements can begin. We cannot simply say, “I’m
sorry,” for a mere apology does not undo the sin if we then continue to do harm. “Sorry” does
not clean the air, the water, or the soil, restore lost species, or stabilize the climate any more than
40
Isaiah 1:5-7.
Tucker, 61.
42
Isaiah 1:16-18.
43
Tucker, 56.
41
17
it undoes our sins towards God. Healing, in both biblical and environmental terms, comes with
an apology made through action. We must heal with our hands as we apologize with our words.
The particular consequences of Israel’s sin become especially significant in the context of
creation stewardship. Brevard Childs reminds us that Isa 1:4-9 does not speak of an impending
judgment against Israel’s iniquities, but rather “[describes] a judgment already fallen. The
imagery is of a rebellious slave who has been repeatedly beaten by his master.”44 Like Israel, our
punishment is already here. Israel lived in a state broken from God, and the condition of the
people and of Jerusalem in particular reflected the depth of their sin. Can we then look at our
world today, to our divinely granted stewardship that we abuse and neglect, and not see the
parallels to Isaiah’s condemnation? The warning in Isaiah does not address an impending doom,
but a perpetual doom that must continue until the people acknowledge and especially redress
their transgressions. Childs points to the simple and emphatic command within Isa 1:16-17,
God’s prescribed instructions for remediation: “Cease to do evil, learn to do good.”45
How do our evils compare to Israel’s? Most compellingly, in the way that we worship
God while violating his instructions. The Book of Isaiah makes repeated references to what
Childs deems the “arrogant people who defile [God’s] worship with their syncretistic, pagan
cults.”46 Israel’s bizarre amalgamation of religions and beliefs, all ostensibly practiced as
worship to Yahweh, appears uncaring and even mocking of God. The first allusions occur in Isa
1 and later receive particular focus in Isa 65. Childs points especially improper worship
practices, but notes that: “The fact that an exact description of the illicit practices is missing
accords well with Israel’s practice of rejecting them en masse as an abomination without much
44
45
46
Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 18.
quoted in Childs, 20.
Ibid, 19.
18
attention to details.”47 In other words, the Israelites knew of sins and spurned their presence, but
hesitated to ascribe the label of “sin” to individual desirable practices. Little transgressions did
not matter so long as society rejected the overarching, ethereal idea of sinfulness. Our little
transgressions today follow the same thinking. Many (but hardly all) modern Christians
acknowledge that Genesis contains some form of call to planetary stewardship. However, we still
drive our cars walkable distances, we still use bottled water, we still resist any environmental
effort that may increase our taxes or hinder conveniences; in short, we profess a sense of
stewardship with no real action to support our words. Good intentions do not address sins by
themselves; we must act to the extent of our abilities to undo our transgressions. We have the
ability to affect change, but go no further than speaking the words of stewardship and
responsibility. Like ancient Israel, our professions of righteousness are empty.
Ellen Davis provides the link between the Israel of Isaiah and the modern Christian
efforts towards environmental stewardship. Davis speaks of Isaiah’s frequent mention of Zion as
an iconic presence that served as a fusion of the earthly and the divine. Says Davis, Zion is, “an
icon: a holy, healing image whose function is to invite worshippers into a different experience of
the world and their own humanity… And because of its iconic significance, Zion’s beneficial
influence can be felt in every place…”48 Christian tradition transforms the image of Zion and the
chosen people of Israel to encompass the whole of the Church; as Christians, we inherit God’s
promises along with Israel.49 We then assume the iconic mantle that Davis describes,
commanded as we are to spread throughout the world to teach people of Christ’s works.50 In the
most basic terms, then, we are Davis’ “holy, healing image” when we act in accordance with
47
Ibid., 535.
Davis, 163.
49
Cf. Gal 3:26-29.
50
Cf. Matt 28:19.
48
19
God’s will and teachings. Isaiah called the ancient Israelites to renounce their defiance of God
and return to proper practices of life and worship. Today, a return to God’s instruction can come
through acknowledging God’s relationship to his creation. If we demonstrate our commitment to
the created world through our actions and professions, we serve as the ancient icon that drew the
nations towards God.
For the Israelites, God called them to their original obligations to justice and
righteousness.51 Today, our condition takes a different form as the world deteriorates from our
abuses. Our transgressions go against God’s earliest commands from Eden; like Israel, we must
both cease to do evil and learn to do good. It rests with us to adopt new actions for the redress of
ecological harms even while we repudiate the actions that first caused the harms. If we choose
the path of humility and service as we work within Earth’s systems, then the hope God expressed
to Israel may hold to us as well: “If obedient to the way of life prescribed by God, Israel can
enjoy the gifts of the land.”52 If we treat the Earth as God intends, then we may end the decay
that we ourselves cause. Then, once again, the whole of creation may return to health, enjoyed
and served by the stewards whom God placed on the Earth.
Isaiah 65-66
As the Book of Isaiah begins with God’s call to the Earth to hear his complaint against
the people of Israel, it ends with the first promises of a new heaven and a new earth. Isaiah 1
showed God’s concern for creation by admonishing Israel for her dereliction of duty; Isaiah 6566 reveals God’s plan to restore the inherent goodness of both the Earth and her human stewards.
In vv. 6-7, Isaiah speaks for a God whose patience is at an end:
51
Isa 1:16-17
52
Childs, 20.
20
“See, it is written before me: I will not keep silent, but I will repay; I will indeed repay into
their laps their iniquities and their ancestors’ iniquities together, says the Lord; because they offered
incense on the mountains and reviled me on the hills, I will measure into their laps full payment for
their actions.”53
However, the dire condemnation of Israel gives way to a hint of hope: God proclaims that he
wants to see creation’s restoration to its proper goodness, a new heaven and a new earth, born of
the enduring goodness of Jacob’s descendants.54 Thus, despite Israel’s sins, God does not intend
to wipe out creation, but instead to see a new, pure form of creation rise from the dregs of sin.
Brueggemann gives considerable attention to the image of a new creation growing from a
seed, and the particular importance of the created world in God’s new plan for creation.
Brueggemann points to Isaiah 66:22, saying, “the ‘seed’ is declared part of God’s permanent
worship community.”55 From the earliest days described by Genesis, God intended the Earth
itself to exist as an integral part of the entire created order: humanity does not till and keep the
Earth only for their own needs, but because God blesses the Earth with value through
humankind. As the seed of the new creation takes root, God reaffirms creation’s place in the
“permanent worship community.” In doing so, God promises “a day to come when enemies in
the realm of nature would peacefully coexist.”56 God does not want to destroy creation as a
remedy for sin; instead, God intends to reform creation with the worst parts removed and the best
parts preserved.
Isaiah 65-66 concludes the thoughts begun in vv. 1, namely the reason for God’s anger
and the need for God’s action, culminating in a restoration of the entire creation, both the people
and their Earth. The book of Isaiah affirms the deep unity of creation: if mankind neglects the
responsibilities of stewardship, the entire created order goes awry. God concerns himself both
53
Isaiah 65:6-7.
Isaiah 65:17; 66:22.
55
Brueggemann, NIB, 545.
56
Brueggemann, NIB, 544.
54
21
with humanity’s wellbeing and the wellbeing of their charge, the Earth itself. If we do not
acknowledge and perform our required tasks, including the care of God’s creation, we fail in our
purpose as God’s children. Our worth is measured both by right action towards God and right
action towards his works. Right action is right relationship. God does not teach us to place
creation above ourselves, but rather to place ourselves within creation, both as creatures and
caretakers, respecting the relationship that God desires.
Romans 8
Even as Paul writes of the imminent arrival of God's kingdom, he maintains an
understanding of creation as an inseparable union between humankind and the Earth. In
particular, Paul deals with humanity's profound role in the glorification of creation itself.
“I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory
about to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children
of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who
subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain
the freedom of the glory of the children of God.”
As Paul anticipates the kingdom of God, he reminds us that the entirety of creation looks with
hope to humanity that we may remember ourselves and once again acknowledge our place as
God's children. If humankind can turn from its sinful ways, the restoration and the glorification
of both humanity and the earth must follow.57 As with Isaiah, Paul does not anticipate a
discarding of the material world once humanity achieves glory. On the contrary, as N.T. Wright
says, “the coming New World will involve, not the abolition of the present one, but it's
57
Brendan Byrne, S.J., Romans, Vol. 6, Sacra Pagina Series (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996), 256.
22
transformation;” glorification involves both a new heaven and a new earth as a consequence of
humankind's transformation.58
Paul furthers his argument by describing a hierarchy of the transformation that must take
place. In examining Genesis 2, we saw that the word “subdue” connotes the proper ordering of
creation. The same sense of hierarchy occurs in Romans 8 as Paul describes an interrelatedness
between the “groaning” of both mankind and the entirety of creation in mutual anticipation of
restored glory. Paul sees creation as dependent on mankind’s return to God:
“We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only
the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for
adoption, the redemption of our bodies. For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope.
For who hopes for what is seen? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that
very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. And God, who searches the heart, knows what is
the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. We
know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his
purpose.”
Richard Bauckham takes issue with contemporary interpretations of Rom 8:22. The
NRSV, as quoted above, uses the phrase “the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains
until now...”59 Bauckham points out that the verb “to groan,” which English Bibles typically
render as a single action, actually takes two forms in Greek: first, “to groan with/together;” and
second, “to mourn.”60 Images of childbirth place too much focus on creation’s pain outside of
humankind; modern translations imply that creation suffers separately until humanity’s
restoration, at which point the pain ends. Perhaps most dramatically, the Gospel of John
demonstrates a meaning of groan quite removed from labor pains: when Jesus came to Mary
after her brother Lazarus’ death, classic translations of John record that, “When Jesus therefore
saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and
N.T. Wright, Romans, Vol. 10, New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 597.
emphasis added
60
Bauckham, 96.
58
59
23
was troubled.”61 The NRSV, among others, renders “he groaned in the spirit” as “he was greatly
disturbed in spirit,” leaving the true sense of “groan” obscured.62 Jesus does not feel a pain that
he suffers outside of Mary’s pain; on the contrary, he weeps because he grieves with her for
Lazarus’ death. Similarly, the creation does not simply suffer in anticipation, like a woman
waiting for the end of childbirth, but strives with humanity in our anticipation of the coming
glory. Like Jesus at Lazarus’ tomb, creation has a role in the process of groaning, as well as the
final resurrection.
Bauckham’s dual translations show an intimacy between creation and humankind that
underscores Paul’s argument in Romans, especially as it reveals a thematic link between Paul
and Old Testament texts. Bauckham especially sees the prophets Joel and Isaiah as
demonstrating both Paul’s definition of “groan” and providing valuable insights into
environmental stewardship. First, the prophets generally see far greater suffering from creation
than the thorns and thistles mentioned in Gen 3:17-18. Joel gathers the entire experience of
creation, the Earth, plants, animals, everything, into a unified grief caused by mankind’s
faithlessness.63 Bauckham sees parallels between Joel 1 and Romans 8 and suggests that Paul’s
sense of the groaning of all creation draws far more on texts like Joel than a simple image of
labor pains.64 Paul’s sense of a groaning creation intimately ties creation’s fate to our own in a
way that creation itself can recognize and acknowledge. Paul does not use grandiose imagery to
make a point but rather refers to ancient prophetic tradition.
61
Jn 11:33, King James Version of the Bible (KJV)
Jn 11:33, NRSV
63
Joel 1:10-12, 17-20 (Cf. Bauckham, 98)
64
Bauckham, 98.
62
24
Second, Bauckham raises the critically important issue of the Fall and its relationship to
on-going Christian stewardship efforts.65 Although Christian responses to the environmental
crisis take many forms, a recurrent theme rests on the Fall and a view of humanity’s fallen state
as static and unchanging until the true end-times described in such texts as Revelation. Under
one argument, no amount of remedial efforts can truly make a difference until Christ returns to
restore all of creation. Again, Paul’s knowledge of prophets can provide insight into how we can
usefully and faithfully read both Romans and the prophets in an ecological context. In his
discussion of Paul’s sense of creation in Romans 8, Bauckham alludes to several prophets to
reject the idea that the Fall, as an isolated event, holds sole responsible for today’s troubles
regardless of our actions.66
We see that humankind rests at the center of Paul’s anticipation, for our choices will determine
when the seed of the new heaven and the new earth can come to fruition. Paul makes clear that
creation matters because creation must join with humanity in transformation. While we do not
seek our redemption solely for the Earth's sake, we nonetheless cannot ignore the fact that our
obligation to God includes the union that God established between humanity and creation. Even
as we prepare for the coming kingdom, our obligations towards God's world remain.
1 Corinthians
Paul presents a masterful theological argument in 1 Corinthians 15 as he responds to
rationalist attacks against the Gospels within his Corinthian congregation. Paul defended Christ’s
bodily resurrection against two arguments: a rationalist insistence on observable evidence, and a
65
66
Ibid., 96.
Isa 24:1-7; Jer 4:23-25; Hos 4:3
25
rejection of goodness in material creation. 1 Corinthians 15:40—50 highlights the arc of Paul’s
defense of divinity in material existence through his appeal to observable nature. Paul’s linking
of earthly and heavenly glories to Christ’s simultaneous material and divine presence refutes the
Corinthian rejection of bodily worth, and provides a divinely-manifested connection between the
material and heavenly planes.
The combination of “popular Greek philosophy and secular education were affecting the
Christians of Corinth:” a growing emphasis on both natural knowledge through observation and
wisdom from the divine realm increasingly placed the Corinthians at odds with Paul's preached
Gospel. 67 The Corinthians emphasized a search for wisdom, a personal and selective connection
with the divine, and the utter impurity of the material world. Some Corinthians began to see
human wisdom, not the Scriptures, as the ultimate source for knowledge of God.68 For them,
wisdom comes from God directly, and God elects some and rejects others to receive his divine
wisdom.69 By extension, some of the Corinthian congregation rejected any notion of value or
goodness in the material world. At best, the world around us distracts us from the contemplation
of wisdom; at worst, the world mires us in material passions that prevent us from reaching God.70
Thus, “from [the Corinthian] perspective the body is eschatologically insignificant [insignificant
for our ultimate dwelling with God in heaven.”71 The rejection of any goodness in the material
world prompted Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.
First, Paul needed to affirm the worth of all of God's Creation in order to justify God’s
presence in the material world. Paul crafts an argument that reclaims scripture from new
67
Fitzmeyer, Joseph. First Corinthians: (The Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 34.
Fee, Gordon. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 8.
69
Ibid.
70
Fee, 12.
71
Ibid.
68
26
Corinthian ideas: he compels them to use their wisdom to see the connection he makes between
the material in nature and the divine in God's Word. Paul compares the Earth and the Heavens as
he works to connect the material mortal life with the anticipated immortal life, using the terms
“earthly bodies” and “heavenly bodies” in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44.72 Ancient cultures often
viewed celestial bodies like the sun and the moon as part of the immortal heavenly realm.73
However, at the time that Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians, naturalist consideration of
the world engendered a view of the sun and the moon as part of the natural landscape, albeit
closer to the heavens than to humans on Earth.74 Paul’s use of “earthly bodies” and “heavenly
bodies” draws both on the sense of “heavenly bodies” as divine and “heavenly bodies” as part of
nature.75 Paul subsequently uses the spectrum of meanings of “heavenly bodies” to underscore
the relationships that connect the tangibility of earthly nature to the intangibility of celestial
nature, and finally ties both to God’s divine works throughout creation.
Paul addresses literal bodily resurrection by smoothing out the hierarchical transition
from mortal being to immortal being, using the theme of glory to provide continuity between
earthly and heavenly life. Beginning at 15:40, Paul distinguishes between “earthly bodies” and
“heavenly bodies,” both in terms of their form and their glory. As used elsewhere in scripture,
“glory” typically connotes the holiness and glory of God.76 Paul's use of “glory” to alternatively
refer to God, the entirety of heaven, celestial bodies, and earthly beings creates a unity between
72
Reis, David M. “Earthly Bodies.” Page 174 in vol. 2 of The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by
Katharine Sakenfeld et al. 5 vols. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc, 1982. ;
Avalos, Hector. “Heavenly Bodies.” Page 768 in vol. 2 of The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by
Katharine Sakenfeld et al. 5 vols. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc, 1982.
73
McLaughlin, John L. “Moon.” Pages 138-140 in vol. 4 of The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited
by Katharine Sakenfeld et al. 5 vols. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc, 1982.
74
Sakenfield “Sun” Vol 5 404-405 helios (Young 946)
75
Avalos, “Heavenly Bodies,” 768.
76
Ibid.
27
the highest and the lowest in Creation.77 Paul's ubiquitous use of “glory” establishes a connection
between human beings and their Creator.
Paul builds off of his “hierarchies of glory” to illustrate a divine purpose for both the
corruptible material body and the immortal resurrected body as he responds to the Corinthian
rejection of any value in the material body.78 Thus he begins an analogy between life, death, and
the resurrection that rests on the agricultural imagery of sown seeds and raised plants; Paul lends
a holy presence to the action of sowing the seed and raising the plant.79 Therefore, the “seed” of
Adam, the first man, has a divinity deliberately given by God that necessarily anticipates a future
growth of a new being.80 The presence of a future body requires a sowing of a mortal body;
desirable or not, the material elements of existence have a critical role to play. For Paul, the glory
of the mortal being necessarily reemerges from death as the glory of an immortal being: “What is
sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory.”81
Paul builds off of his preceding argument for literal resurrection by championing the necessity of
a mortal death to achieve an immortal life.
Although Paul wrote primarily to defend nascent Christian doctrine against the
Hellenistic and secular influences in Corinth, his lesson can speak to us as we seek to find our
place in the natural world in the midst of a global environmental crisis. Paul addresses themes of
absolute rationalism, the physical impossibility of bodily resurrection, and the glorious sanctity
of material existence; his lessons hold as much for us as they did for the Corinthians. We face
Paul's ancient challenges in modern terms: atheists champion scientific rationality as humanity's
77
Ibid.
Collins, Raymond. First Corinthians. (Sacra Pagina. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 20.
79
Fitzmeyer, First Corinthians, 595.
80
Ibid.
81
1 Cor 15:42-44
78
28
ultimate state, leaving no room for the power of the divine; secularization rejects any possible
connection between the mortal life and some supernatural existence; and we dismiss the glory of
God's Creation through thoughtless and selfish exploitation of our world.
Paul defended the Church against the Corinthian's rejection by deeply engaging with the
scriptures to identify connections between our present state and our impending immortality. Paul
affirmed the glory of material creation, joining the visible and the invisible by demonstrating a
continuum of glory. He starts with the Earth and ends with the heavens, a continuum that we can
observe only in part. Similarly, we can accept scientific observation while holding onto the idea
that we may not ever see all of the glories in Creation before our mortal lives end. We need not
twist Paul's words in order to learn about environmental stewardship and the place of spirituality
in a secular society; Paul speaks clearly for himself.
Paul’s defense of bodily resurrection goes beyond refuting rationalist sentiments in the
Corinthian church. By illustrating distinct parallels between earthly bodies and heavenly bodies
while locating Christ’s place in both, Paul affirms a link between the observable Earth and the
unknowable Heaven that places theology and rationalism on similar paths. Paul argues that a
rationalist can believe in the unseen while examining material world by demonstrating that the
material and immaterial beings share the same glory in different forms as part of God’s Creation.
Ultimately, Paul articulates a place for observation in theology and affirms that the material
world serves a purpose as necessary as the divine.
Paul sees an inherent glory in creation that justifies a Christian sense of stewardship. The
Earth has value not only because God created it, but also because God places the material
creation within the glory of the entire creation, including the heavenly and the divine. Paul’s
argument therefore refutes a view of the Earth as a simple source of raw materials. Combined
29
with lessons from the Old Testament, particularly from Genesis and Isaiah, he affirms that God
values the Earth for the Earth’s sake. Paul’s 1 Corinthians view of the whole created order,
especially humanity’s relation to the rest of creation, echoes his sentiment in Romans 8:
“For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the
creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it,
in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the
freedom of the glory of the children of God.”
Creation’s fate rests within our own; the redemption of humankind is the redemption of all.
Therefore, although God gave humankind the Earth to till and keep, we cannot then assume that
God does not care what we do with it.
Church Fathers
The “Church Fathers,” a broad term generally applied to the earliest theologians of the
Christian faith, provide compelling evidence of a respect for God's creation existing in the
earliest manifestations of the Church. Although I give more detailed attention to two fathers in
particular, St. Athanasius and St. Francis, a general overview of the teachings of the Church
Fathers reveals a theme of respect and even adoration of God's creation. As they worked to
establish the doctrines of the new church, the Fathers dealt extensively with the question of
God's revelation. Can humankind truly comprehend God? Does God make himself known only
through the Scriptures? If we, as limited and sinful beings, do not have the capacity to know God
through a direct revelation of God’s true being, where can we look to learn more about our
Creator? For many of the Church Fathers, revelation begins by observing God's creative works
as part of the same revelation provided more directly in scripture. Not only must we see the
world as one of many ways to learn more about our Creator, but we must also acknowledge that
God deliberately ordered creation to draw us closer to himself. Not once do any of the Church
Fathers suggest that we worship nature because of its divine origin, any more than we would
30
worship the Bible itself. We rather worship the One behind the Bible, the same “Author,” as
Gregory of Nazianzus says, behind the creation that made us and all that exists. The Fathers
teach us that our place within God’s creation is a deliberate part of God’s plan to reveal his love
for us. For that reason, we can think of creation in much the same way we think of the Bible,
even if we keep the Bible as our ultimate focus in Christian life. Creation itself is a sacred source
of instruction about the divine, not itself worthy of worship, but worthy of our consideration and
care.
Sts. Athanasius and Francis merit specific attention because of their unique contributions
to a Christian theology of creation. In an effort to justify a belief in Christ’s fully material
incarnation, Athanasius described the entire created order in terms of Jesus’ earthly body, in
order to demonstrate that God did not demean himself by taking a bodily form in Jesus of
Nazareth. For Athanasius, Christ’s agency in creation as part of God’s will and Christ’s agency
in humankind’s redemption as the Savior both indicate that the created world, the material beings
we inhabit, has inherent value. St. Francis incorporated nature into his ministry to a degree rarely
seen either in antiquity or today. Even Lynn White, hardly an advocate of anything Christian,
commended St. Francis’ sense of nature’s worth. Taken together, Sts. Athanasius and Francis
provide a deeply reverent and affectionate theology of creation.
Athanasius
St. Athanasius emphasized creation's value at a time when many Christians rejected the
notion of worth in the material world. In his book, On the Incarnation, Athanasius describes in
detail why Christ's manifestation as a physical being holds such importance for the Christian
faith. He sees a link between Christ's agency in the creation of the world and Christ's agency in
31
the resurrection of mankind that lends inherent value to the created world as part of God's divine
plan.
First, St. Athanasius points out that “the Word of the Father [Christ] is Himself divine...
all things that are owe their being to His will and power, and... [it is] through Him that the Father
gives order to creation.”82 Athanasius maintains that Christ's unified work with the Father in the
beginning of creation underscores all of Christ's subsequent actions: “There is thus no
inconsistency between creation and salvation; for the One Father has employed the same Agent
for both works, and affecting the salvation of the world through the same Word who made it in
the beginning.”83 Because God the Father chose to use the same Word for the material creation
and for the redemption of mankind, Athanasius suggests that both actions have tremendous
importance in our overall understanding of the Christian faith. In other words, in light of the
profound importance of Christ's work in the salvation of humankind, his presence and agency
during the creation highlights creation’s inherent worth as part of God's works.
Second, St. Athanasius describes the ongoing creative action, continuous before and after
Christ's incarnation and resurrection. Athanasius argues that Christ dwelled within creation from
the very beginning; he remained a part of all that is, even when he became a human being.84
Athanasius’ argument justifies a call to creation stewardship because it assumes a constant
presence of the divine within creation. Even when Christ became man, he continued to inhabit
the entirety of the created world, underscoring the importance of the union between humanity
and the creation that we inhabit. Christ's simultaneous dwelling in both the created order and in
human form tells us two things: first, both human beings and the material world experience the
82
Athanasius, 25.
Ibid., 26.
84
Ibid., 33.
83
32
ongoing presence of the divine; and second, as Christ calls us to emulate his teachings, we must
acknowledge that even while in his human presence as Jesus of Nazareth, a presence meant to
redeem us from sin, he did not remove himself from the created world. Christ teaches us that
God cares about his creation even as he cares about us.
Third, Athanasius describes a perversion of creation's intention wrought by humanity as
we turned away from God. As discussed previously, the Genesis texts point strongly to
servanthood as part of God's reason for placing man in the Garden of Eden. Building from an
idea of humanity's proper relationship to creation, Athanasius illustrates humanity's self-inflicted
harm brought about by our inattention to a proper relationship to both God and his creation. In
Athanasius time, the primary problem manifested itself in a worship of nature: “[human beings]
transferred the honor which is due to God to material objects... so impious were they that they
worshiped evil spirits as gods in satisfaction of their lusts.”85 For Athanasius, we sin when we
forget our proper place in creation. God did not place us here to worship what he had made;
rather, God placed us here to tend the material creation so that both humanity and the creation
itself could properly worship God. 86 By extension, the same problems exist today. Although
some people do worship the Earth, the “satisfaction of [humanity's] lusts” that Athanasius
describes can translate to our contemporary exploitation of the Earth's resources. Our lusts now
take the form of greed, possessiveness, pride, and selfishness. Humanity takes as much as we can
as quickly as we can: regardless whether it means deforestation or mountaintop removal or toxic
emissions, or even the deaths of whole ecosystems and harm to innumerable human
communities. We treat the Earth as a means to satisfy our desires, our lusts, without respect for
the God who made it or acknowledgement of its being as a God-given responsibility. We
85
86
Ibid., 38.
Ibid.
33
“worship” the material Earth as the means to our ends, destroying ourselves and our planet in the
process.
Fourth, Athanasius sees Christ’s involvement in both creation and redemption as the
foundation for natural theology: the belief that we can gain a greater understanding of the Father
by examining his creation. Athanasius holds that creation is a deliberate form of God’s
revelation:
“God knew the limitation of mankind, you see; and though the grace of being made in His
Image was sufficient to give them knowledge of the Word and through Him of the Father, as a
safeguard against their neglect of this grace, He provided the works of creation also as means by
which the Maker might be known.” 87
In Athanasius’ eyes, God gave us creation not only to till and keep, but also to examine. Too
often today, we examine creation through abusive and violent means. However, Athanasius calls
us to examine creation in order to explore the being of God. In fact, he considers “the harmony
of creation” as a means of knowing God second only to “[looking] up into the immensity of
heaven,” superseding even the revelation brought by the prophets. 88 Therefore, to destroy God’s
creation is to destroy a profound divine revelation; like the Bible, the Earth holds answers about
God’s being, for Christ inhabits both, the Word and the World.
Finally, Athanasius completes his description of the divine hierarchy of Earth, humanity,
and God himself. Athanasius first qualifies his preceding discussion of revelation in nature,
saying, “Perhaps you will say, then, that creation was enough to teach men about the Father…
[However,] Creation was there all the time, but it did not prevent men from wallowing in error.”
89
Athanasius raises an important point: lest we fall into the same sins and lusts that he derides,
we must not confuse the means and the end. We can learn something about God from his
87
Ibid., 39.
Ibid.
89
Ibid., 42.
88
34
creation, but we cannot assume to know everything about God even if we study the Earth
carefully. As we work to develop a sense of creation stewardship, we must remember that the
Earth matters because God gave us the world and partially revealed himself to us through the
world. We must not forget that creation and even humanity have worth only in relation to our
Creator. Athanasius thus provides a thorough justification and direction for creation stewardship:
God gave us the world for our keeping, God gave us the world for our understanding, and neither
we nor the world matter unless we remember that all we do must ultimately return to God.
St. Francis of Assisi is perhaps the most useful demonstrator of a proper Christian
relationship toward creation. St. Francis' surviving writings, as well as his companions' narratives
of his life, reveal a man so thoroughly devoted to God's wondrous works in creation that he saw
the world neither as irrational nor irrelevant, but as part of the great chorus that continually sings
God's praises.
In their most basic terms, the stories told both by and about St. Francis demonstrate that
he did not consider humankind as the only valuable element of God's creation. St. Francis joined
birds, fish, rabbits, crickets, and myriad other creatures in praising the Creator, reveling in the
unique form of praise every creature raises to God.90 More than mere enjoyment, St. Francis
entered the company of his fellow creatures in order to offer God his praises: in one story, St.
Francis sat down in the middle of a flock of birds, offering his midday prayers while the birds
around him sang; in another, St. Francis calls to his “Sister Cricket” to join her song with his
hymns so that they might praise together. 91 St. Francis praised God for all the grandeur of
creation, from the heavens to humankind to the insensible elements themselves. Among many
90
St. Francis prayer, 24; 79.
St. Francis 2, 234.
St. Francis prayer, 77.
91
35
other writings, St. Francis composed the Canticle of Brother Sun; it is one of the greatest
expressions of his love for the entirety of God's works:
All praise be yours, my Lord, through
all that you have made,
and first my lord Brother Sun,
who brings the day; and light you
give to us through him.
How beautiful is he, how radiant in
all his splendor!
Of you, Most High, he bears
the likeness.
All praise be yours, my Lord, through
Sister Moon and Stars;
In the heavens you have made them,
bright and precious and fair.
All praise be yours, my Lord, through
Brothers Wind and Air,
and fair and stormy, all the
weather's moods, by which you cherish all that you have made.
All praise be yours, my Lord,
through Sister Water,
so useful, lowly, precious and pure.
All praise be yours, my Lord, through
Brother Fire,
through whom you brighten up
the night.
How beautiful is he, how gay!
Full of power and strength.
All praise be yours, my Lord, through
Sister Earth, our mother,
who feeds us in her sovereignty
and produces various fruits
with colored flowers and herbs.92
St. Francis set himself apart from other church fathers by not merely acknowledging God's
works, but actively engaging with them out of respect for their purposes as given by God in the
beginning. For instance, when St. Francis suffered an injury that required cauterization with hot
iron, he first spoke directly to “Brother Fire,” saying, “I pray our Creator, who made us, to
temper your heat so that I can bear it.”93 St. Francis knew that absolutely everything he
92
93
St. Francis prayer, 33-34.
Ibid., 99.
36
encountered in life came from God, and thus everything he encountered deserved respect and
affection.
Lynn White’s commendation of St. Francis’ attitudes towards the Earth is wholly
justified. However, White mischaracterizes the quality of the relationship St. Francis established
with the creation around him. According to White:
“The key to an understanding of Francis is his belief in the virtue of humility – not merely for
the individual but for man as a species. Francis tried to depose man from his monarchy over creation
and set up a democracy of all God's creatures. With him the ant is no longer simply a homily for the
lazy, flames a sign of the thrust of the soul toward union with God; now they are Brother Ant and
Sister Fire, praising the Creator in their own ways as Brother Man does in his.”94
To be sure, St. Francis did exhort his fellow creatures to worship God, and delighted in the
variety of ways in which they praised the Creator. However, to suggest that St. Francis wanted to
“depose man from his monarchy over creation and set up a democracy of all God’s creatures”
ignores the ways in which Francis’ fellowship with creation embodies the interpretation of
Genesis 1-2 discussed previously: God calls us to serve as stewards, as mediators between
heaven and Earth, to bring all of creation with us into mutual glory with the Father. White’s
assertion of Francis’ egalitarian motives appears anachronistic, since it suggests the kind of
“dominion” we associate with humanity today: the ruthless and wanton exploitation of nature
without any sense of sanctity or responsibility. St. Francis did not live in a time where
humankind had a very real power to destroy the world, as we do today. While he did encourage
and enjoy all holy praise from every element of creation, nothing in his writings suggest that he
wanted to undo God’s decision to give special place to humanity from the time before the Fall.
The greatest example of St. Francis understanding of humanity's role in relation to the
rest of creation comes from a story wherein St. Francis was called to preach to a flock of birds.
Although it may sound silly to us today for anyone to preach to birds, St. Francis took the matter
94
White, 1206.
37
quite seriously as part of God's expectations for humanity's conduct toward the rest of creation.
While journeying through the Spoleto Valley of central Italy, St. Francis and his companions
discovered a massive flock of birds along the road. Francis immediately left the road, as well as
his companions, and approached the flock. The birds recognized the great piety of St. Francis
and remained where they stood, even as St. Francis came so close that his garments brushed past
them.95 Thus situated amongst the birds, St. Francis said to them:
“My brother birds, you should greatly praise your Creator, and love Him always. He gave you
feathers to wear, wings to fly, and whatever you need. God made you noble among His creatures and
gave you a home in the purity of the air, so that, though you neither sow nor reap, He nevertheless
protects and governs you without your least care."96
St. Francis’ impromptu sermon to the birds tells only part of the story, for it drove him to
consider the place of all of God's creatures within human ministry specifically:
“After the birds had listened so reverently to the word of God, [St. Francis] began to accuse
himself of negligence because he had not preached to them before. From that day on he carefully
exhorted all birds, all animals, all reptiles, and also insensible creatures, to praise and love the Creator,
because daily invoking the name of the Savior, he observed their obedience to his own experience.”97
We see here that Lynn White did not accurately assess St. Francis' beliefs or motivations. Rather
than striving to pull humanity down from a place of arrogant dominion in the world, St. Francis
wanted to extend humankind's understanding of the divine to the rest of creation. He recognized
that, from the beginning, God allotted a special place to human beings in the created order, and
so St. Francis felt called to minister to animals and plants and the Earth itself in order to
faithfully undertake God's intentions for humanity. We see here a proper model for dominion as
envisioned by Genesis: human beings humbly serve as stewards and as teachers, giving to the
rest of creation what God gives to us, so that, through humanity, all of creation may be brought
to proper glory. St. Francis ministered to creation neither out of the arrogance White attributes to
95
St. Francis 2, 234.
Ibid.
97
Ibid.
96
38
Orthodox Christians nor out of a desire for a democratic worship community that White
attributes to St. Francis himself. St. Francis does provide an outstanding demonstration of true
Christian stewardship of creation by respecting the relationship between God, God's children,
and God's creation. He understood that to love God and follow God's commandments is to love
the creation and seek to bring ourselves and the whole Earth to fruitful glory.
Conclusion
Forms of environmentalism that regard the Earth as inherently valuable, not merely as
resources to protect and sustain, fit well inside a Christian sense of stewardship. I do not mean to
suggest that Christian doctrine places paramount importance on creation stewardship. Rather, as
I examine the biblical texts, I work to demonstrate that the Bible often places a moral
responsibility on humankind to care for God’s creation. Stewardship then becomes one of many
forms of worship within the Christian faith, all of which ultimately hold God as their focus.
Creation stewardship is not more important than other forms of worship, but it does constitute a
failure on our part if we ignore it. God made the world, God made us, and God placed us within
the world to till it, to keep it, to observe it, and to preserve it. Ours is a responsibility of balance:
living in the world and using what it provides, as necessary for our survival, while always
regarding creation as part of God’s works and therefore worthy of our respect.
To be sure, my analysis of the Church’s scriptures and history, as well as the views of the
authors I cite, do not represent a universal understanding of Christianity; if they did, I would not
need to write this paper. Christians and the larger theological community frequently reject
notions of natural theology or a sense of stewardship within the faith. I cannot speak for the
Church, past or present. I only mean to demonstrate that, from the earliest manifestations of
Christianity to our modern theology, thoughtful and passionate Christians have sought to keep
39
the work of God’s hands, work beyond human beings, within the scope of our mortal
responsibility.
Christianity gave purpose to my environmentalism. I already knew that I loved nature,
that I loved hiking through the woods and swimming in lakes and scrambling up mountains.
Christianity answered the question of why I loved the Earth. Not just as a surface to hike or a
source of air and water. I need places to put my feet and the materials that sustain life, but
Christianity brought the wonder and majesty that made a love of the Earth more than enjoyment.
It became a matter of duty and responsibility.
I do not know how many people would resonate with my experiences. Christianity is not
a simple means to reinvigorate environmentalism. I simply suggest, to the people who doubt the
place of faith in damaged world, that Christianity can bring a richness and morality to
environmentalism that does not always appear automatically. As an environmentalist Christian, I
know that many people in the Church need the same encouragement that I present in the paper:
environmentalists have a perspective and energy that can and will benefit our congregations, if
we let them. I started as an environmentalist and then became a Christian. I wanted to start with
environmentalists and show them the side of Christianity that holds the Earth in reverence as one
of God’s creations.
40
APPENDIX A
For by means of the creation itself, the Word reveals God the Creator; and by means of
the world [does He declare] the Lord the Maker of the world.98
St. Irenaeus, 3rd century Bishop of Lugdunum in modern-day France
Now nobody denies what nobody is ignorant of—for Nature herself is teacher of it—that
God is the maker of the universe , and that is good, and that it is man's by free gift of its Maker.99
For indeed, as the Creator of all things, God was from the beginning discovered equally
with them [the works of creation], they having been themselves manifested that He might
become known as God.
Tertullian, 3rd century theologian from Carthage, modern-day northern Africa
And perhaps one should not even attempt to demonstrate such points [sensible proofs of
God's existence], the divine Providence being evident from the sight of all its skillful and wise
works which are seen, some of which take place in [the created] order, and some appear in [the
created] order.100
St. Clement of Alexandria, 3rd century theologian and teacher
98
Irenaeus, Willis, 130.
Tertullian, Willis, 130.
100
St. Clement, Willis, 131.
99
41
But in our belief about God, first comes the idea that God is. This we gather from His
works. For, as we perceive His wisdom, his goodness, and all His invisible things from the
creation of the world (Romans 1:20), so we know Him.101
St. Basil the Great, 4th century Bishop of Caesarea, modern-day Turkey
‘I will consider the heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars’ (Ps. 8:4)…
Now our very eyes and the Law of Nature teach us that God exists and that He is Efficient and
Maintaining Cause of all things; our eyes, because they fall on visible objects, and see them in
beautiful stability and progress, immovably moving and revolving if I may so say; Natural law,
because through these visible things and their order, it reasons back to their Author.102
St. Gregory of Nazianzus, 4th century Archbishop of Constantinople
Him we know from His creation, and apprehend His invisible power by His works.103
Tatian, 2nd century theologian from Assyria
I began to praise the Creator, as I saw the earth fast fixed, and living creatures in such
variety, and the blossoms of plants with their many hues. But my mind did not rest upon these
things alone; but thereupon I began to inquire whence they have their origin.104
St. Methodius, 9th century theologian from Greek Thessaloniki
101
St. Basil, Willis, 132.
St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Willis, 133.
103
Tatian, Willis, 134.
104
St. Methodius, Willis, 135.
102
42
... yet it is further possible to attain to the knowledge of God from the things which are
seen, since Creation, as though in written characters, declares in a loud voice, by its order and
harmony, its own Lord and Creator.105
St. Athanasius, 3rd century Bishop of Alexandria
For [creation] is not wicked, but is both beautiful and a token of the wisdom and power
and lovingkindness of God... the creation leads us to the knowledge of God, because it causes us
to know the Master fully.106
St. John Chrysostom, 5th century Archbishop of Constantinople
105
106
St. Athanasius, Willis, 136.
St. John Chrysostom, Willis, 137.
43