Recently, I received an online
invitation to complete an opinion survey from a foremost, international,
conservation organization of which I have been a member for many years. The invitation explained that the purpose of
the survey was to [with emphasis mine]
improve our story and the language we use to inspire
support and action globally. We seek to enhance
the description of the organization and its vision in ways that…[are]
authentic, [distinct], emotionally
compelling, [and] …successful at
presenting the benefits of what we do and the case for why people should
care and support our mission.
From the above excerpt of the survey, we can see that this particular
conservation organization aims to sharpen its bid for support in two ways. First, to clearly define its mission and its vision;
and second, to present a more “authentic” and “compelling” appeal to its constituency
on behalf of caring for the environment.
In short, if you care about the
environment, and “buy into” our mission to care for it, then you will decide to
support our efforts.
The online survey was one of the best I’ve ever completed. Following a number of well designed
inquiries to measure my response to the organizations’ priorities and language,
the survey presented an essay summarizing its rationale, mission, and current
conservation activities. I was directed
to use the cursor to highlight in either green or red any particular
words or phrases in the essay that elicited a positive or a negative response,
respectively. I was also asked to write a rationale for each
of my responses.
Finally, the essay was divided into paragraphs and each was presented
individually along with hypothetical responses and a request that I select the
response with which I could most closely identify. The following hypothetical response was of
greatest interest to me because it seemed to address most closely the goals of
the survey (emphasis mine).
BROWN (fictional name) believes this earth is a special
place where life is possible. More than that, Brown believes it is
an incredible and precious gift and that every one of us has the
personal responsibility to protect it and to live our lives in a way that
ensures it will remain healthy for future generations. We are all stewards
of the earth.
I am in general agreement with the thrust of this statement; but, I must
contend that the organization offers no foundation or worldview that is
sufficient to uphold the claims of the statement.
First,
hypothetical “Mr. Brown” values Earth
because he “believes [it is] a special place”—one that presumably has the
unique conditions necessary to support life as we know it.
Although it seems plausible that the
so-called
anthropic
principle is true, our limited sampling of the universe prevents us
from validating the claim with certainty.
Therefore, Mr. Brown needs a more convincing appeal on behalf of the
environment, and he moves right to it.
Second, just as Mr. Brown
believes Earth is
unique so also he
believes it is a
precious gift.
Here, I
believe Mr. Brown’s claim is without foundation on two counts.
First, it is not clear why “believers” like
Mr. Brown
believe that Earth is “unique” and “special.”
Is their belief based on science, or faith,
or some combination of the two?
If faith
is involved, Mr. Brown’s belief would appear particularly unfounded in the eyes
of naturalistic, evolutionary scientists who generally deny the role of faith
in science.
They would also deny any
role for supernatural causation in the work of evolution to which they attribute
the marvelous biological systems of planet Earth.
Nothing “unique” or “special” in that
Mr. Brown’s claim that Earth is a
gift
is even more precarious and unfounded than his “belief system” unless he
accounts for “a giver” of this gift.
But
to name a “giver” or “Giver” or “Creator” would be out of the question within a
naturalistic worldview.
Furthermore, to
presume that humans out of all the evolved species are the
recipients of this
gift
of nature only further affirms an anthropocentric ethic which many blame for
the environmental fix we’ve gotten into in the first place.
The third appeal from Mr. Brown is based on the rights of future
generations.
Few can deny that this is a
strong argument, particularly to those who have children and grandchildren, or
who love the younger generations in general.
However, this claim too has its limitations, particularly when we
realize how poorly we can predict either the future needs of humankind or the
amazing ability of technology to open whole new avenues to meet those needs.
Finally, as if to place a capstone on his earlier claims, Mr. Brown states that
humans are
stewards of the Earth.
Humans as stewards are supposed to realize
that they have a responsibility toward planet Earth like a servant to his or
her master.
As such, humans are to
manage the affairs on the master’s behalf.
The concept of stewardship is as old as the history of master-owner and
master-slave relationships.
Stewards were required to be faithful in
managing that which did not belong to them; but instead belongs to—whom?
Who exists in the role of
master?
Here, we find two more problems within Mr. Brown’s use of the concept of
stewardship to appeal to us as would-be caretakers of nature.
First, as history affirms, stewards are
required to manage things that belong to someone else.
But Mr. Brown has just claimed that the Earth
is a
gift to us to cherish and
conserve.
Gifts are given with the
understanding that the recipient can claim ownership.
But if we are owners, the very point of the
concept stewardship is dulled.
Brown’s
stewardship is further diminished by the fact that he doesn’t mention an owner—someone
(Or is it “Someone?”) who delegates authority and responsibility to stewards
and provides objective, ethical and ecological guidelines for judging proper
management of Earth’s environment.
In summary, we have attempted to point out that fictitious Mr. Brown’s appeal,
one that is commonly expressed in some form by conservation organizations and
government agencies, is philosophically and ethically weak because it lacks
foundation and consistency.
The devil
seems to be in the details, creating subjectivity and confusion with respect to
(a) the uniqueness of Earth, (b) the role of faith or belief, (c) the uncertainty
of future generations, and (d) confusion regarding the notions of gift and
steward.
Unless these concepts are
resolved, the appeal offers only good-sounding words that echo from a time when
words like
belief, ownership, and
stewardship meant something much
more.
Let’s look back into the history
of another conservation organization at a time when this richer meaning was
still included.
The December-January, 1970 issue of
National
Wildlife magazine, published by the
National Wildlife
Federation, opens with the following words spread across several very
colorful pages:
The hand of the Creator
is seen in all living things,
An inquisitive ground squirrel, a striking egret;
A katydid’s song, or colorful violets;
Towering redwoods…and puny man.
But man is the lone creature with power to reason.
He has an awesome responsibility,
Because the Creator has made him steward.
The emphasis upon wonder, responsibility, and stewardship are evident in the
statements of both organizations, but a four-decade span reveals the
disappearance of the key element—our Creator.
In my judgment, the Creator God of the Judeo-Christian stewardship ethic
is the missing piece in Mr. Brown’s confusing appeal.
The special revelation of the Bible teaches
that God is the Owner and Master of planet Earth.
Genesis 1: 26-28 reveals that God gave
mankind the dominion or kingship, and the power to rule over the land, water,
and creatures.
Then, Genesis 2:15 further
defines this dominion by explaining that Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden
of Eden to “till and keep” the land.
In
Hebrew, “till and keep” are translated to our words “to serve” and “to preserve”
in such a way that the land will “serve back” with a fruitful growth and
harvest.
We also understand from Scripture that God retains ownership of His creation.
Contrary to Mr. Brown’s claim, creation was
not God’s gift to man.
Instead, man
received the gift of
relationship
with God and the gift of being able to “serve with” creation to unlock its
bounty for the benefit of all creation.
For the past five years, I have used my
Oikonomia
blog to express the content and relevance of the Christian stewardship
ethic.
I have also cited the writings of
many Christian environmental ethicists like Michael Northcott who argue much
better than I that a biblical environmental stewardship ethic offers
a better hope for the future of the world
than a purely secular ethic.
J. Baird Callicott wrote in his popular
conservation biology textbook:
The Judeo-Christian
Stewardship Environmental Ethic is especially elegant and powerful. It also
exquisitely matches the requirements of conservation biology. The
Judeo-Christian Stewardship Environmental
Ethic confers objective value on nature in the clearest and most unambiguous of
ways: by divine decree.” [2]
Although many secular ethicists have followed Lynn White
in blaming the Judeo-Christian ethic for leading western civilization to
plunder the environment, he failed to realize that it was not the Christian
ethic
per se but the failure of the
church to correctly apply it that has caused much abuse of the
environment.
This unfortunate
misapplication of the Dominion/Stewardship Mandate outlined throughout the
Bible has also led those in leadership positions in the environmental movement
to either ignore or reject it as having any usefulness in their appeal for us
to care for the Earth.
And so the “Mr. Brown’s” of our world wonder how they can
present a more
authentic and compelling appeal to their constituencies on behalf of caring for
the environment. Might it be that
today’s conservation organizations are like plants whose roots have been
pruned to nonexistence leaving them “high and dry” without an objective anchor
or foundation?
Although they use words
that once had objective significance, their appeals are now subjective, largely
anthropocentric, and uncompelling.
Perhaps
Carl Pope, past president of the Sierra Club, speaking of his own generation of
environmentalists, summarizes my point best in his apology to the Orthodox
church:
We sought to transform
society, but ignored the fact that when Americans want to express something
wiser and better than they are as individuals, by and large they gather to
pray. We acted as if we could save life
on Earth without the same institutions through which we save ourselves.
Carl Pope’s words have not fallen on totally deaf ears. In recent years, the environmental movement
has recognized the importance of bringing evangelical leaders “onboard” to
increase the impact of their appeal, particularly related to their concern
about climate change. Indeed, many
climate scientists and politicians including the current administration in
Washington have “come aboard.” However,
I fear that that the “environmental movement” may be going from a “rootless
plant” to an “anchorless ship.”
Government agencies and NGO’s certainly have an essential role, but proper
stewardship of planet Earth must begin within the hearts of transformed
individuals. As conservationist and
ethicist Aldo Leopold stated:
No important change in ethics was ever accomplished without
an internal change in our intellectual emphasis, loyalties, affections, and
convictions.
Leopold was skeptical that government agencies and movements
alone could produce such change:
Things that are done
wholly by government are really not done, because any decent land-use is
worthwhile, not only for its effect on the land, but for its effect on the
owner. If the owner is an impersonal government, nobody is benefitted except
the government employee.
As I have stated elsewhere in
Oikonomia,
and as just stated by Leopold, real changes in attitudes leading to meaningful
and effective stewardship of the environment cannot be fostered primarily by
government.
Although it is unclear
whether Leopold personally experienced spiritual transformation, such a change must
begin with individual recognition of Who the Creator and Owner of creation is;
and, an understanding of His plan that begins with a spiritual reconciliation
between God and each fallen man.
Reconciliation
begins with a conviction and recognition of our sin nature, followed by confession
(owning up to) of his or her sin and need of forgiveness through faith in the
atoning death of Jesus Christ on a Roman cross(Romans 10: 9-10).
Once reconciled with our Creator, we can begin to understand our responsibility
as stewards of (a) the message of the Gospel of Christ and (b) the material
world and resources entrusted to us by our Creator.
Acting in complementary fashion with the
local church (a fellowship of the “body of Christ”), we are nurtured by family
and
community
relationships toward the development of godly character and ethical
behavior toward God, our neighbor, and toward creation.
Finally, as Leopold suggested above, the exercise of stewardship of the land
is worthwhile, not only for its effect on
the land, but for its effect on the owner.
What a bonus!
When we care for
creation, we enhance our own strength of character and virtues.
Likewise, as we “serve creation,” creation “serves
us back” with its bounty.
As I have written
elsewhere
,
climate change or any environmental issue is best addressed beginning with a “change
of character” that works its way out though godly living in family, church, and
community.
Points for Comments:
1.
Of what conservation or
environmental organization(s) are you a member and why?
2.
To what extent can an environmental
organization “do good” for the environment without its philosophy and mission
grounded in a biblical stewardship ethic?
3.
How would your rationale for caring
for the environment or “creation” differ from that represented in the statement
attributed to Mr. Brown?
