Land Ethic 5: Theological Arguments

Land Ethic is posted in a series of six sections. This essay was published previously in New Philosophy (Jan-June 2005). - Editor.

Other sections: 1: Introduction; 2: Instrumental Arguments; 3: Utilitarian Arguments; 4: Intrinsic Value Arguments; 6: New Church Arguments

Theological Arguments

There are three broad interpretations of the Bible accepted in Christian circles these days, dominion, stewardship, and citizenship ethics. The dominion ethic holds that people were created in the image of God and granted mastery over nature to do with it as we please, negative side-effects on exploited ecosystems are of no importance because only heaven matters. The stewardship ethic reads the Bible differently.  It finds support for a belief that man is the reason for creation, but that must keep the world we have been entrusted a beautiful life sustaining gem, which we should use but not exploit. Lastly there is the citizen ethic that claims we are merely citizens in a natural world.  All of God’s creation is equal in His eyes. Across these three schools of thought there is a gradation of spirit-body dualism from absolute in the dominion ethic to only the slightest trace of dualism in the citizenship ethic.

The dualistic attitude toward nature inculcated in Genesis is often blamed for many of our environmental problems. If we are to have dominion over the world and subdue it, then we will do with it as we please, and the Hebrew word, ‘subdue’ has a harsh militaristic sense to it.  Reading that passage literally we were enjoined by God to wage war on the surrounding environment, to wrest a living from it. (Black, 37) This is the dominion worldview that Lynn White Jr. attacked vigorously.

In 1967 an historian named Lynn White Jr. laid the blame for the world’s ecological crisis squarely at the doorstep of Christianity. He accused the dualism of man/nature and dominion of being the driving forces behind the exploitation and overdrawing of the world’s resource stocks.  He claimed that science is an extension of natural theology and that “…modern technology is at least partly to be explained as Occidental, voluntarist realization of the Christian dogma of man’s transcendence of, and rightful master over, nature. But 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 the ecological effects, are out of control. If so, Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt.” This statement, published in a prestigious scientific journal aroused the ire of theologians, but it also stimulated a discussion on the complicity of the organized church in ecological ruination. Since the publication of his article much progress has been made in the biblical interpretations that afford respect to creation.

I think where White oversteps his bounds is when he links Christianity with technological optimism and calls it the root of the problem. If he had said Christian dualism is partly guilty he would be on firmer ground. If the determining criterion of the ecological crisis we now find ourselves in is the attitude of dominion inherent in Christianity then there should be examples of other large cultures that lived in harmony with their environments. (Wright, 218) A dualistic attitude contributes to an ethic that discounts the value of all things natural, but it does not in itself require that contempt be felt for creation. Gorke, who is decidedly not a Christian philosopher, says this as well, “The claim to fundamental power over all the nonhuman world expressed in this statement (referring to the Second Vatican Council’s pronouncement that all earth should be oriented toward humans) was, of course, not restricted to either Christianity or the other great monotheistic religions Judaism or Islam” (Gorke, 246).

However, White does partially redeem himself in the last paragraph of his paper when he writes, “Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious whether we call it that or not. We must rethink and refeel our nature and our destiny.”  I agree with most of that statement, but for the part about the problems being caused by religion. I side with Richard Wright when he says that the fundamental problems are, “…human greed, pride, carelessness, and ignorance. This is the source, the root of our environmental troubles.” (italics his) (Wright, 219) So it is not that Christianity caused our environmental problems.  It just happens that it was fertile ground for the development of powerful technologies, which, when used selfishly or sinfully, cause great harm to the world.

It is interesting that in some Christian circles, notable evangelical ones, the doctrine of dominion is held in high regard, but the verses immediately preceding them are therefore partially ignored.  After each act of creation God sees that what he had just made, “was good”. This phrase is used six times during the creation story, and a seventh time with the adjective, ‘very’ in the last verse describing the whole work (Genesis 1:1-31). If God finds something to be ‘good’, and read literally, all creation is good in the eyes of God, then humans cannot claim any right to destroy it.

After Lynn White’s paper a new school of Christian thought developed in a virtual tidal wave of apologia. (Callicott, 187, Beyond) It gained a substantial following the 1960s and 1970s as the gravity of our ecological crisis began to sink in. Theologians hurried to defend their faith from the indictments made by the likes of White, and to develop a reading of the bible that was in keeping with observable facts in the natural world. The result was the stewardship ethic. This ethic holds that man is made in God’s image, but that does not mean we should try to act as god, deciding what is allowed to live and what is not. We are to keep creation, to use it, but not to use it up. The parable of the vinedresser is one of many biblical quotations use to support this line of reasoning. (Matthew 21, Mark 12, and Luke 20)

Another quote that supports this interpretation of the Bible comes from Matthew where Jesus says, “Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin?  And not one of them fall to the ground apart from your Father’s will. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Matthew 10;29-31) Two conclusions can easily be reached by examining these verses. There is a hierarchy in the natural world with man at its pinnacle and that God watches out even for sparrows.

In his short work, Thou Shalt Die in a Polluted Land, the Reverend Paul Folsom gives one of the most succinct summaries of why the stewardship ethic has been accepted so quickly in Christian theology. He makes explicit the connection between acting well toward the neighbor and acting well toward the land. “Jesus Christ made loving of the neighbor the first concern of the Christian ethic.  This neighbor is more and more seen to include everyone on the globe. The teaching of Christ’s commandment of love will not be complete without due consideration to the care of the earth from which all men draw their nourishment and sustain their life” (Folsom, 55).

The stewardship ethic, then, does not fully depart from the anthropocentrism ingrained in thinking this way. It argues that the world must be loved for what it is, God’s great creation, and for what it does, support human life. Therefore in a few direct logical steps developing a land ethic supports an anthropocentric ethic. Peter Wenz defines the stewardship ethic thus, “God created the world for the good of people and all other creatures. People should flourish as they care for creation. Human domination of nature is meant to be for the good of the whole, not for anthropocentric mastery” (Italics his) (Wenz, 228).

The third interpretation of the Bible is the citizen ethic. It is only a short step away from the ‘holism’ of Callicott and Gorke. And one of its chief proponents interestingly enough is Callicott, despite the fact that he is not a Christian. The citizen ethic sees the fall of man as the development of anthropocentrism. John Muir is this interpretation’s greatest prophet. In his essay Callicott uses John Muir as an example of a ‘citizen of nature’, because he was schooled extensively in the bible and made references to it in his writings throughout his life. However it is unclear whether he considered himself a Christian at the time of his death.

It can be argued that Saint Francis, who saw all God’s creation giving praise to the Lord in heaven and who gave sermons to the birds and beasts, is another great example of the citizenship interpretation. “The greatest spiritual revolutionary in Western history, Saint Francis, proposed what he thought was an alternative Christian view of nature and man’s relation to it; he tried to substitute the idea of equality of all creatures, including man, for the idea of man’s limitless rule of creation.  He failed.” (White, Science). But there is still a belief that what is needed is just such an ethic to flourish. It could be that the non-Christian proponents of the citizenship ethic think that stewardship is not radical enough to really change our relationship with the land. Wenz unmasks just such a bias when he introduces the citizenship ethic section of his book. “The stewardship interpretation may not be the environmental ethic needed today. Yet it seems clearly superior to the Master Interpretation. Let us now examine an even more environmentally friendly view” (Wenz, 230).

Final section: New Church Arguments

References

Berry, Wendell. Sex, Economy, Freedom, and Community. New York: Pantheon Books, a division of Random House, 1993.

Black, John. The Dominion of Man. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1970.

Callicott, J. Baird. Beyond the Land Ethic. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1999.

Callicott, J. Baird. In Defense of the Land Ethic. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1989.

Folsom, Rev. Paul. And Thou Shalt Die in a Polluted Land. Ligouri, Missouri: Ligourian Pamphlets and Books, 1971.

Freyfogle, Eric T. Bounded People, Boundless Lands. Washington DC: Island Press, 1998.

The Holy Bible, trans. Unknown. New King James Version. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

Gorke, Martin. The Death of Our Planet’s Species: A Challenge to Ecology and Ethics. Washington DC: Island Press, 2003.

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press, 1949.

Leopold, Carl A. “Living with the Land Ethic,“ in Bioscience, vol 54, no 2 (February 2004), p. 149-154.

Nash, Roderick F. The Rights of Nature. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, Ltd., 1989.

Rolston III, Holmes. Environmental Ethics. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 1988.

Rolston III, Holmes. Philosophy Gone Wild. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1986.

Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics, second edition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Swedenborg, Emanuel. Arcana Caelestia, Vol I: Trans. John Elliot. London: The Swedenborg Society, 1983.

Swedenborg, Emanuel. Arcana Caelestia, Vol III: Trans. John Elliot. London: The Swedenborg Society, 1985.

Swedenborg, Emanuel. Divine Love and Wisdom, Trans. George Dole. West Chester, Pennsylvania: The Swedenborg Foundation, 2003.

Swedenborg, Emanuel. Love in Marriage, Trans. David F. Gladish. New York: The Swedenborg Foundation, 1992.

Swedenborg, Emanuel. The True Christian Religion, Vol I: Trans. John Chadwick. London: The Swedenborg Society, 1988.

Wenz, Peter S. Environmental Ethics Today. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

White, Lynn. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” in Science, 155:1203-1207.

Wright, Richard T. Biology Through the Eyes of Faith, revised. San Francisco, California: Harper Collins Publishers, 2003.

Thanks also to Rev. Grant Odhner for his paper, “Key Ideas on Nature from the Heavenly Doctrines”.

Edmund Brown

Edmund was raised in Bryn Athyn where he attended New Church schools. He lives near Cooperstown, New York where he works as a registered nurse. He is currently plotting his departure from nursing by engaging full-time in setting up a farmstead cheese making operation. He finds the greatest joys in life from his marriage to Normandy Alden, his dear family and friends, and spending time in the woods and fields of his far