Calling for Stewardship Without a Master

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.[1]   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[3] 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.[4]

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.[5]

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.[6]

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[7], 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?

---

[1]   Northcott, Michael S.  1996.  The Environment and Christian Ethics.  Cambridge University Press.

[2]  Callicott, J. Baird.  1994. “ConservationValues and Ethics,” pp. 24–49, 36 in Principles of Conservation Biology, 2d ed., eds. G. K. Meffe and C. R. Carroll.  Sinauer Associates, 1994).

[3]  White, Lynn Jr.  1967. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” Science 155 (1967): 1203–7, 1205.

[4]  Pope, Carl.  1998. “Reaching Beyond Ourselves: It’s Time to Recognize Our Allies in the Faith Community,” Sierra Magazine 83: 14-15 (November/December)

[5]  Leopold, A. 1948.  “The Land Ethic” in p. 201-214. :  A Sand County Almanac.  London: Oxford U. Press.

[6]  Leopold, A. “Letter to Douglas Wade, dated October 23, 1944,”  Leopold Papers 9/25/10-8 Box 1 Folder 3, 465. as cited at http://www.humansandnature.org/aldo-leopold--reconciling-ecology-and-economics-article-122.php

[7]  Silvius, J.  Creation Care and Christian Character.   Creation Care (Summer, 2007): 7-9.   Online Article HERE

Reflections on Father’s Day

On this Father's Day, I paused to thank my Heavenly Father for His grace and mercy which He first revealed to me through my earthly father, Bert Silvius.

With Dad and Sister, Margie

One of my earliest memories of Dad was singing with him in our little Methodist Church, in Dundee, Ohio.  Dad made a point of sharing the hymnal with me so that I could see the time-honored words of the great hymns of the faith.  As I sang along with Dad the hymn "This Is My Father's World" and observed his big hands, strong and toughened by the toil of farm work, I remember feeling so safe and glad because my world seemed to be held and controlled by his strong hands.

As I grew into elementary age and could work on the farm, I was glad to work alongside my Dad even though it was more fun to play with my sister or my cousins when they were around.  Our family shared the house with my Dad's parents and my Uncle, Glen Silvius.  There were many happy times for me, but there were also times of strife.   You see, farming had its challenges for my Dad. Working in partnership with two brothers and the watchful eye of his own father who had his own ideas, provided many opinions on how things should be done.  Yet I never heard my Dad show disrespect for his brothers or his father. Instead, he worked hard and was usually the one to whom the others came when advice was needed.

Gradually, I came to know that my earthly father was not in control of the world.  There were people and forces much larger than Dad that appeared to control the course of events.  But, through my Dad's example of responsibility and respect, I learned to know that this big, uncertain world actually belongs to the God of Heaven.  And eventually I came to know this God personally as my Heavenly Father.  This process took many years but it came about in an unusual way.

As I grew into my teens, I faced adolescent challenges of relationships both in our family and at school.  I obeyed my parents who challenged me with the help of regular "disciplinary reminders" over the years.  I came to realize my own tendency to be selfish and mean, often to the chagrin of my sister or our farm cats.  Many times, I was sorry for my behavior, and I knew that it disappointed both my parents and the God of Heaven.

Meanwhile, over the years I had grown used to observing Dad both in public and in private.  I watched him in front of our church reading passages from the Bible, or leading in prayer and sharing ideals that seemed wise but so hard for me to attain.   I watched Dad as I worked with him, my cousin, and my uncles on the farm.  Both uncles had "short fuses" and would verbally abuse my Dad when things didn't go the way they wanted it to go.  Yet, as I noted earlier, I never heard my Dad respond in a disrespectful manner.  He was not perfect but I had to admit that the words he read from the Bible and the prayers he prayed in public were consistent with the way he tried to live outside of church during the week. As a result, Dad showed me enough of what God must be like to prepare my heart for the day when I would confess that I too was a struggling sinner who needed God's grace and mercy to deal with my sin nature and to save me from my own selfish tendencies. For that I say “Thank you, Dad.”

I considered Dad well educated and wise even though he voluntarily ended his formal education in his 8^th grade year in order to help his parents on the farm.  Although his formal education stopped, Dad’s love for learning continued throughout his life.  He read every farm magazine and scientific book he could obtain.  His love for mathematics, botany, and chemistry allowed us to converse about my organic chemistry when I was home from college as he milked the cows and I forked manure.  He and Mom not only helped to pay for my college education, but they both shared their love for learning in a contagious way.  Far from being envious of my "higher education” Dad, and my Uncle Glen who had no sons of his own, were my greatest male encouragers.

And so, on this Father's Day, I can truly say, "Thank you, Dad.  I miss you still.  I trust that one day, you will enjoy a reunion with all of us who are counting on God's grace and the promise of Real Life to come.  Although at this time you may not have the ability or the time to do so, I believe you would enjoy seeing your grandchildren and their spouses, and your great-grandchildren.  Being "mechanically minded" has skipped a generation, you know; and, your grandson, Brad, demonstrates the same versatility in both mental and mechanical skills that you had.  Space does not permit me to go into details here but I have recently written about one of his projects, The Little Leaders Company.  Brad was aided by his gifted wife, Raquel, and other family members and friends in the production of several DVD's that are now teaching biblical values to children. Brad has also taught Abby and I much about ourselves and God's goodness.  Just today, he gave me a call for Father's Day today which was a blessing as always. 

Furthermore, you will remember the little blond granddaughter you used to carry around.   Just wait until you see what a lovely woman Melinda Maetta has become.  She's a nurse and nurse supervisor, and you had a part in igniting that interest in her-- one day, she will love to tell you about it.   She also makes a good pastor's wife.  You haven't personally met our son-in-law, Steve,  but  as a young pastor, he now stands before the members of Northpoint Church of the Nazarene and reads from the Bible, preaches, and prays.  God has done a great work in his life and continues to mold and shape him. You will also enjoy Mindy and Steve's son, Caleb, and two daughters, Kiara Maetta and Della Rose Katherine.   And now Mindy and Steve's three children remind me of myself when I sat in church, listening to you read from the Bible and pray—with at least one exception:  they are already ministering through helping with technology (Caleb) and in music (all three). As was my experience, I pray that their love and respect for their earthly parents will grow in such a way that they will come to know, love, and trust their Heavenly Father with their lives.  

I didn't mean to be this "long winded" but would be amiss, Dad, if I didn't mention the greatest person in my life, the Abby that you admired in both words and actions.   She has been the key to anything good that has come from my family and my work by God's grace.

Dad, your work on Earth is finished, but ours continues.  We pray for the grace from God to continue to love Him and to follow His Word and the principles that make for a godly family. Perhaps the prayer you wrote and prayed nearly fifty years ago this year is a fitting way to end this reflection.  Thanks for praying and applying God's principles as my Dad.”

May all of us come to understand that right living alone exalteth a family,

that only in Thy will can peace and harmony abound.

Help us to live together as people who have been forgiven a great debt.

Help us to be gentle, walking softly with one another.
Help us to be understanding, lest we shall add to the world=s sorrow.

Help us to stand for what is right,

Not because it may yield dividends later,

but because it is right now.

Help us to be as anxious that the rights of others shall be recognized

as we are that our own shall be established.

Help us to be eager to forgive as we are to be forgiven.

God help us all to be ministers of mercy
and ambassadors of kindness for Jesus,

In Whose Name we pray, “Our Father Who are in Heaven…”

 Bert Silvius,   April 19, 1964

Halting the Demise of “Liberal” Education

Jacob Tanenbaum, a fourth and fifth grade science teacher, recently wrote “A Science Teacher Draws the Line at Creation,” in Scientific American.  The online version was originally published in the January, 2013 print edition of Scientific American under the title “Creation, Evolution and Indisputable Facts.”

Mr. Tanenbaum laments that, according to a recent survey, "40 percent of the American electorate seems to have forgotten what science is." However, I would respectfully contend that Mr. Tanenbaum, like many scientists who have “drawn the line,” are either ignoring or are unaware of the philosophical context of science.  

Perhaps some of the “problematic 40%” are still aware that the process and progression of the natural sciences depends upon several presuppositions--claims that are not provable, but are accepted by faith.  Let me briefly list them.  First, scientists must acknowledge the existence of objective reality—belief that physical reality exists apart from our imaginations or individual subjective interpretations.  Second, experimentation is based on presupposing the operation of “cause and effect” relationships in nature. Finally, scientists believe that experimental outcomes should be repeatable because it is accepted that natural processes are orderly and governed by certain natural laws that do not change from day to day.  In short, these presuppositions represent a belief system that precedes and under-girdsscientific thought and activity.

Mr. Tanenbaum’s view raises a second contextual problem for science and science education.  When we consider the philosophical context of what we call natural science (once called natural philosophy), we realize that “natural science” is limited in its capacity to define the boundaries of what we call “the real world.” On the other hand, those who credit natural science with limitless powers to know all of reality (i.e. possess the faith that "all we see is all there is") find it completely logical to deny “supernatural causation.” 

Truman (Jim Carey) walks to work
in his contrived world

Instead of acknowledging a supernatural power or being as the creator, many scientific naturalists like Mr. Tanenbaum attribute the complexity of living organisms to the laws of matter and energy operating through chance occurrences over billions of years.   But, because the operation of science depends upon the “faith presuppositions” noted above, how can science deny the validity of models that extend the boundaries for what we call reality?  Is it legitimate for scientists to “guard the boundaries” like the managers of the artificial, TV studio world of Truman Burbank in the movie, The Truman Show?

I believe that many in Mr. Tanenbaum's "40 percent" are good scientists, well aware of the wonder and complexity of the natural world; yet they are also well aware of the philosophical context of science.  The resulting perspective has led them to choose not to believe that life can be explained entirely by undirected natural causes.  Therefore, these folks tend to favor discussions of supernatural causation in the science classroom.  They argue that belief in such models is as valid as the belief that inanimate matter can self-organize and become animate without supernatural intervention. 

Truman touches the limiting horizon
of the contrived world.

Many of the “40 percent” are adolescents and college-age students or younger children and adults who are endowed with a quality of human nature that thrives in a learning environment characterized by freedom of expression and inquiry.  Like, Truman Burbank, they desire to probe the boundaries and discover things beyond the horizon.

What then is the role of the teacher or professor in a place of learning?  Is it his or her place to guard the boundaries as if to keep Truman from discovering that there might be something beyond the horizon?  Or is it to rediscover the joy known by educators of past centuries who believed in a truly “liberal” education?   I have known the satisfaction of watching students motivated to learn when they are exposed to the “inquiry approach” in the science classroom and laboratory.  The scene in which Truman breaks through the false horizon erected around his artificial world should convict all of us against the tendency to limit our students and cut off creative thinking.  If we fear the entry of “junk science” don’t we believe that “good science” is capable of eliminating false hypotheses through honest inquiry?

Exhilaration in discovering "reality beyond"

I close with a final consideration. It is one that all honest scientists must realize; namely, that no one was there to observe the creation of the first organic molecules, the first genes, the first cells, or the fossils in rock strata such as those of the Grand Canyon. Therefore, I suggest that both naturalistic evolutionary scientists and creation scientists must exercise caution in their attempt to explain the origin of life.  Instead, each should read the others' research and writing and strive for honest, respectful dialogue.  I suggest that a good place for both evolution and creation scholars to begin is by reading Dr. Leonard Brand’s excellent article, “A Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of Science.”

As I complete this blog entry, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is calling on Ball State University to discipline Dr. Eric Hedin, a professor of physics and astronomy, for his alleged attempt “to proselytize students and advance Christianity by using gaps in scientific knowledge—the ‘boundaries of science’ in an attempt to prove religious belief correct…”  What’s the harm in college students “exploring the boundaries of science” at an age when they are seeking the meaning of life?  After all, aren’t they also exploring moral and ethical boundaries as they consider their relationship to alcohol, drugs, and gambling?  All the while many students are bored and unfulfilled as they listen to liberal progressive and humanistic dogma in the classroom.  Many can relate to Jim Carrey’s character, Truman, was as he went to work daily in his artificial world.   On the other hand, might the answer to the woes of science education be found in the science classroom where ‘tolerance’ for all viewpoints is justly applied?”  Wouldn’t it bring a breath of fresh air on secular American university campuses and on many “Christian campuses” to offer to students a “truly liberal education? 

From a Christian worldview, teaching and research in the natural sciences should be undertaken as a stewardship of the truths of the natural revelation and of the special revelation.  As stewards of both the knowledge of science and the young learners entrusted to us, we should take our role seriously:

                Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren,
               knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.  – James 3:1

Useful Sources:
Brand, Leonard.  2004.  A Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of Science.  http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_31B/31Bcc_043-080.pdf
Ham, Ken, Georgia Purdom, Steve Golden.  2013.  Responding to the False Claims of a Scientific American Columnist.   www.answersingenesis.org  Search word:  “Tanenbaum”
Pearcey, N.R. and C.B. Thaxton.  1994.  The Soul of Science:   Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy.
Crossway Books,   Wheaton, IL.