Throughout history there have been many charges brought against the christian faith. Most recently it has been a charge that christianity is at the root of our current ecological crisis. In Lynn White’s article “The historical roots of our ecological crisis” he attacks the way that the christian faith has, throughout history, led us to the place we are today in terms of the ecological crisis. White’s argument has held ground since it was published 50 years ago. Since his article our ecological crisis has progressively gotten worse. Although the christian faith isn't the sole bearer of this crisis, White makes some strong arguments for why they should hold some responsibility. Many Christian theologians have responded to White’s attack, some have tried to refute it, others use biblical backing to explain the actions of christianity. James Nash writes an article articulating the bible’s call for christians to take ecological responsibility, “The Bible vs. Biodiversity: The Case Against Moral Argument From Scripture.” Overall, there is one main point, creation is being destroyed and as christians we have to care to save it.
Lynn White’s article brings many charges against christianity. Although White isn’t calling for people to stop practicing christianity, he is calling for reforms in biblical doctrines and theology. Whites first major point points out the thought process that christians hold which is detrimental to nature. White believes that christians have a sense that they control nature. That they are ordained by God to impose their will on nature. Man named the animals which establishes their dominance. White says Christians believe God planned all of this explicitly for mans benefit and rule, because he is made in God's image. The fact that humans are made in God's image gives us an ontological level up in some people's eyes. We have the ability to control nature because we are made in God's image. “We are superior to nature, contemptuous of it, willing to use it for our slightest whim.” White brings up the historical roots of christianity that may have led to the ecological crisis of today. White states that christians desacralized nature therefore diminishing the idea that nature was linked with spirits allowing actions to be taken against nature without consequences. In antiquity every tree had its own guardian spirit. By destroying this idea, which is pagan animism, christianity made it possible to exploit nature in without thinking about the feelings of natural objects. In his article, White details the way this nature was looked at throughout time by different cultures. “In the early Church, and always in the Greek East, nature was conceived primarily as a symbolic system through which God speaks to men...This view of nature was essentially artistic rather than scientific. While Byzantium preserved and copied great numbers of ancient Greek scientific texts, science as we conceive it could scarcely flourish in such an ambience. However, in the Latin West by the early 13th century natural theology was following a very different bent. It was ceasing to be the decoding of the physical symbols of God's communication with man.” Throughout history different cultures have seen nature differently but the western christianity view is what is widespread today. Out of this view has come another problem, technology. “More science and technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one.” White details how christianity is one of the only religions that doesn’t believe in nature being saved as something vital. “Especially in its western form christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has ever seen.” Christianity, completely different to ancient religions, insists that God wants man to exploit nature for his own good. This article was incredibly controversial and caused a lot of anger. White’s points although incredibly harsh on christianity do have some backing to them.
Many different theologians have responded to White’s article. Jürgen Moltmann was one of these. He rejects the accusation that the bible calls people to exploit nature. He believes that humans use biblical passages where it could be construed as that message as an excuse. For example, Gen 1.28 which says “be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth”. This passage can be used to say that humans should have a reign of power over nature but in reality God is calling for humans to tend and care for his creation. Humans taking power over nature isn’t what’s intended,God calls for only a rule of peace without giving humans power over life and death.
Moltman does agree however that as christians we must come to terms with the tradition and history of influence that our theological doctrine has had. Moltmann discusses Natural theology, which is what we know about God from observing nature. He says that if we look at nature we see that God has an appreciation for beauty, that he is extraordinarily creative God, and that he promotes a sense of harmony between organisms. How could a God who lets nature show us this also want us to exploit it?
Robin Attfield also responds to Whites claims. He attacks White’s argument about technology causing damage to the earth. Attfield claims that the examples white uses aren’t even inherently related to christianity. That these inventions would have occurred regardless. Attfield claims that there is no attitudes of hostility towards nature that spring out of the christian faith. “Yet in none of this,” he affirms , “do we encounter the explicit articulation of an attitude of indifference to, or hostility toward, nature. Indeed, there seems to be no compelling reason to view these developments as anything more than particular expressions of the universal tendency of all cultures to seek ef cient means to provide for basic human needs.” Attfield discussed White’s claim that christianity is the most “anthropocentric” religion the world has ever seen. However, the qualities of being an anthropocentric religion don’t appear in christianity. Attfield says to be an anthropocentric religion christians would need to believe that the entire purpose of creation is for humans, that only humans have a moral standing, and only human interests should be considered.
Young Seok Cha responded to White’s article as well. He analyzes White’s article saying White blamed the anthropocentric christian worldview for the current ecological crisis. Cha stated that Whites article asserts that God made man superior to everything else creation. Cha believes that White’s argument of christians exploitation of the earth is based on the way he interpreted Gen 1.28 which says “be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth”. He looks at biblical passages that assess two main concepts that set humans apart from the rest of creation. These are being in the image of God and taking control of creation. Cha believes that God calls humans to show God's love through their care of creation. This is reflected in Genesis 2:15. The biblical phrase “dominion over creation” doesn’t mean exploit the earth but instead care for it. Cha calls for christians to explore the ethical ramifications in relation to the environment. “It is essential to explore various ethical perspectives in relation to the environment in order to improve our ability to compre- hend the ethical judgment we face and to have a more balanced perspective with respect to human attitudes toward the natural world.”
Matthew T. Riley discussed why Lynn White might feel this connection with nature. He discusses White’s background and how his connection with creatures inspired this critique of christianitys veiw on nature. “In this light, he understood all creatures – whether they be living, nonliving, or something altogether different – as linked together in their praise of God and through their mutual compassion and care for one another.” White feels a strong connection to nature which is evident from the passion he has when discussing the ecological crisis.
Douglas J. Moo asserts that although humans have hurt creation, if we are gonna lay all of the blame there for hurting creation we also have to acknowledge that creation has been helped by humans. “If creation has suffered the consequences of human sin, it will also enjoy the fruits of human deliverance.” Moo explains that Paul believes that nature has a future with God, it is not only for destruction but also redemption and transformation with God's people. It is destined not simply for destruction but for transformation. Some theologians interpret the way paul uses apocalyptic imagery as a way to provide hope for the future, he is explaining the need for nature and how nature is a part of God’s eternity so we should respect it now. “The reversal of the conditions of the Fall includes the created world along with the world of human beings. Indeed, the glory that humans will experience, involving as it does the resurrection of the body (8:9–11, 23), necessarily requires an appropriate environment for that embodiment.” Moo discusses how when our sins and mistakes are forgiven and we step into eternity the earth will also be cleansed in a similar way. He discusses how the ugliness of the world and the destruction is because of the fall and because of our sin. So christianity can't be blamed for the destruction of nature if it is in the nature of humankind due to all of our sin.
The last response to White is by Ronald Simkins, he agrees with the way White attacks the anthropocentricity of christianity. Simkins believes that holding humans to be the most valuable thing on earth does lead to the exploitation of the environment. He believes that if we are going to begin to solve our ecological crisis we need to first learn how to not read the bible and see the world through an anthropocentric lens. Another famous article addressing this issue was written by James Nash. Nash argues against the claim that the bible makes a case for christians to take ecological responsibility. This argument focuses more on how we, as christians, should treat the planet going forward and doesn’t touch on the historic effects of christianity. He believes there is a major lack of biblical concern to take care of and respect the earth. “Strong biblical warrants would be at least apologetically useful to convince Bible-focused Christians—many of whom are now environmentally unfriendly or even hostile—that ecological integrity is a divine commitment and commandments.” Nash calls for a reworking of the ecological side of biblical doctrines. Like Moo he calls for “christ-like love” to be in reference to how we treat our planet. re-visioning in the light of environmental in the light of environmental sciences of the central affirmations of faith, namely, discerning the ecological potential in biblical doctrines. He also expanded ethical explorations of the meaning of christian love. “This reformation depends on in-depth ethical explorations of the meaning of Christian love in all its dimensions and all its subordinate norms in ecological contexts. We will need to move beyond rhetorical exhortations to ethically deep principles and practices. Ecological ethics rooted in the Christian tradition will be a logical extension of love to its horizons, embracing all life forms in accord with Christian experiences and testimonies to the unbounded love of God.” I think this point of extending the love God shows us the creation he gave us is incredibly important. Nash also makes the point that in context to Genesis 1.28, “be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth” this is a command to all animals not only humans. He discusses how if we are made in God’s image then we should value what he values and he obviously values the earth. Nash is very specific in his argument of the need to save the biodiversity of the planet. He claims that “the planet’s biodiversity is endangered by humans excess.” He claims this is due to “human population growth, economic maldistribution, profligate production and consumption, and now human-induced climate change.” Nash believes this gives us, as christians and humans, a “which is a commitment to work to sustain this planet for ourselves and other creatures by forming healthy habits across the globe.
James Childs responds to Nash’s article by arguing that Nash’s fully correct in critiquing the usage of the bible to support judgements against the protection of biodiversity. Childs goes on to discuss how there are examples of the bible being used to support Nash’s point. I think Childs article supports Nash’s points very well and gives a good critique of his argument. Ellen Davis also writes an article that supports Nash’s
She believes that he is correct in his claim that “biblical writers are more interested in the health of agricultural land than in biological diversity.” But she believes that these two issues are closely related, not only in biblical passages but also in the current ecological situation we find ourselves in. Davis believes that there are passages in the bible that will be helpful in striving to address both of these issues in conjunctionThus the Bible may be helpful in generating particularized visions of what is good for both natural systems and human communities that depend upon them for their own existence. Although any article centered on christianity and the ecological crisis will receive backlash. Nash’s article was better received than Lynn White’s was.
In my personal opinion I think I agree with Nash’s argument more than White’s I think that Christians have a duty to take care of the earth and show creation the love that we receive from God. I don't believe that the bible is calling christians to exploit the earth for our own benefit. I understand where that message could be coming from but i think if we observe the way Jesus lived there is no doubt that God would want us caring for the beauty he created. I think that Nash’s point “Ecological ethics rooted in the Christian tradition will be a logical extension of love to its horizons, embracing all life forms in accord with Christian experiences and testimonies to the unbounded love of God.” is one of the best arguments going forward of how we should interact with nature. Although I think White had a good point in the way christianity desacralized nature. I do think it makes sense that when we unlinked nature with something that should be sacred it caused issues that we are seeing the consequences of today. I don't agree that christians are totally to blame. I think if christianity had not begun to desacralize nature it still would have happened and I think that we would have this ecological crisis with or without christianity. I also like how Nash shot the argument that we are “made in God's image” and therefore that gives us a leg up on the rest of creation down. He states if we are like God than we should value what he values. ANd God obviously values nature seeing as nature is part of his eternal plan. I think the issue of christians claiming that bible gives backing for their exploitation of the earth is a similar issue to people using the bible as backing for any number of things. When we interpret the bible in order to further our own good we are going to run into problems. I agree with white that certain groups of Christians are causing ecological stress or simply not hoping to help fix the problems that exist. But, just like with all issues, that doesn't mean that all christians think or act that way and it doesnt mean its only christians. Personally, as a christian, I believe that we have more of a responsibility to care for our planet. I think the bible makes it clear that we are here to care for others, including animals, and nature. I think nash says it best when he discusses the way we should let God’s love shown through us in the way we care for the creation he gave us.
The debate of christianity versus environmental care is one that has been disputed for generations. But with the ecological crisis worsening by the year we have come to a breaking point. 50 years ago Lynn White’s published his article “The historical roots of our ecological crisis” in which he attacked the way that christianity has, throughout history and currently, greatly impacted the crisis we find ourselves in today. Many theologians have responded to WHite, some critiquing and some agreeing. James Nash also wrote an article centered on this topic but he approached it as what we, as christians, can do going forward. Personally I believe that, yes christianity is partly to blame for the situation we are in today but, over all its humanity as a whole that has put us in the position we have today. I strongly believe though, that as christians, we have a greater responsibility to care for the earth and work to get us out of this ecological crisis.