Volume 7, Issue 2: Dinmensions
A current college textbook on introductory environmental science divides everyone
into two groups based on two different worldviews: Cornucopian and Environmental.1 Cornucopians exploit what they see as "essentially infinite" resources, stripping
forests, slaughtering animals, and so forth. In contrast, environmentalists view
resources as products of the natural environment, in need of protection and maintenance
so that "processes" will be sustainable. Most people are cornucopians, the authors
maintain. Whether or not worldviews can be so simply divided is debatable, but
it does help to raise the question: How should we view the environment?
The authors of the textbook are on to something by invoking worldviews. Worldviews
are systems of thought that capture a person's understanding of reality. We all
have underlying assumptions about reality, and because of this, all worldviews
are inherently religious. The question of how we relate to our environment, as
well as to our fellow man and to God, is essentially a moral question. Environmentalists
are generally not shy about religious and philosophical discussions. Daniel Kozlovsky
in An Ecological and Evolutionary Ethic asks, "Can you still believe that environmental
problems are encompassed by cleaning rivers and reducing automobile emissions?
Can you still be so naive as to think that this is anything other than a fundamental
question of what we are and how we got here and what we might become?"2
Many people try to ground an environmental ethic in non-Christian sources.
Some try to attribute a spiritual essence to nature that is deserving of reverence.
This is basically a pantheistic or perhaps animistic approach. But bestowing
spiritual qualities on nature beyond the reality of what is there requires importing
human qualities into nature. If we ask how the spider feels about being stepped
on, or how the tree feels about being cut down, we must also ask how the lettuce
feels about being eaten. If everything contributes to the essence of one, then
distinctions between better and worse things in nature are eventually lost.
Grain that could be used to feed people is instead given to rats as part of a
temple ceremony in India. This is consistent with the pantheistic worldview.
Rather than elevating nature to a high status, as Francis Schaeffer put it,
"Pantheism must push both man and nature down into a bog." 3
"Would we behave differently if we could see ourselves and all life as parts
of a natural process in the development of the earth?" 4 Materialistic evolution
has little to offer. If an animal rights activist justifies his actions on the
basis that we are all products of evolution, he cannot stop there. The AIDS
virus is just as much a product of evolution as the wolf or the human. Kozlovsky
tries to avoid "right to life" arguments and suggests the following principles:
"It is essential that a species not destroy the environment that it needs; it
is essential for the full development of any organism that it encounter an environment
to which it is adapted, and it is good to remain adapted."5 The reason he gives
for this "good" is that the alternative is extinction. But why should we care
about extinction? "Good" and "bad" are meaningless. By his own admission, "It should
be clear by now that the evolutionary process is an entirely nonethical one,
a process entirely indifferent to its results, a mechanism of continuous species
adaptation without consideration of bad or good."6 Like a good evolutionist,
Kozlovsky insists that evolution is valueless. What is, is. Not much for ethics
The Christian worldview is the only one that can provide a consistent environmental
ethic that puts things in their proper perspective. (Christians have not necessarily
done so, and we are legitimately criticized in this regard.) Why should we treat
the environment in a respectful manner? It is true that nature can be used for
the benefit of humanity, but even if no other reason exists, nature has intrinsic
value because God created it. God saw all that He had made, and it was very
good. God did not become oblivious to His creation after He finished creating.
He cares for the birds of the air and feeds the beasts of the field. After
the flood, He did not covenant with man only, but all of creation. If He is
concerned about His creation, so should we be.
How can we begin to view the environment from a biblical Christian worldview?
Not all imperatives and moral values in the Bible are of equal weight. The
Bible gives us information on priorities. For example we are to love God first,
with all our souls and all our minds and second, we are to love our neighbors
as ourselves. Our concern for the environment is not to be above or outside the
priorities God has established.
Man was given dominion over the earth, setting his place in the creation. We
always exercise dominion, whether we do it poorly or well. The Bible does not
view "overpopulation" as an environmental problem, but people can be. The problem
is not the number, but our lack of knowledge, and more importantly, the heart.
Sin is always ultimately destructive, and we have often exercised dominion poorly.
From the beginning, plants were given to humanity and the animals for food.
After the flood, animals were included as food. We can eat lettuce, or if you
care to, a hamburger. Resources are there, but they should not be taken for
granted or mindlessly squandered. The Fall not only affected humanity, but all
of creation. There really are some bad things in nature, and we can seek to
change them. We can legitimately develop vaccines to fight or cure disease.
Jesus in His compassion healed the sick, and we can imitate Him through fighting
However, dominion is not synonymous with abuse. We need to remember that our
dominion is derived, not autonomous; real, but commissioned. We are stewards .