Is Christianity responsible for the ecological crisis?

Is Christianity responsible for the ecological crisis?

In 1967, Lynn White Jr published the article “ The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”. The general drift of the argument is that Western Christianity, through its interpretation of dominion in Genesis 1, is the basis of the modern scientific and technological exploitation of nature.
Richard Bauckham's “ Human Authority in Creation” in God and the Crisis of Freedom, examines the claim of White Jr and those that follow him. Bauckham maps out Christian interpretation of Genesis 1, in the dominant theological tradition, from the Fathers through to the reformation, in Renaissance Humanism, and in the early modern period.
Bauckham argues that the interpretation of the dominant tradition has been strongly influenced by Greek, and particularly stoic ideas about the uniqueness and superiority of humanity over the rest of nature. Firstly is the anthropocentric idea that the rest of creation was made solely for humanity and that this was to be viewed in strongly utilitarian terms. For the stoics, every creature gained its meaning by its usefulness to humanity. Therefore human dominion was the right to make use of the world for human benefit. This was tied to a strongly hierarchical view of the world, where plants were for the use of animals, animals for humans, and even some humans for the use of other humans. The basis for this hierarchy was the rationality of human beings. Their free will and ability to understand and reason put humans on a different metaphysical relationsip to all other created beings. The final nail from the stoic beleifs was that this division of rational humans and irrational animals meant that “there could be no question of justice or injustice in dealings between them” (137)
Sounds familiar doesn't it?
“Though all derived from Greek philosophical rather than biblical thought, this set of ideas dominated the Christian theological tradition up to the early modern period and is certainly not without its influence today” (138)
Bauckham defends the tradition however, against White's claims.
The traditional interpretation is generally not interested so much in man's relation to nature, but in man's relation to God. More than that, before early modern times, the world was seen as created ready for and adapted to human use, rather than something to be conquered and reshaped at the whim of humans. While the tradition may be anthropocentric, this is set within a wider theocentric point of view. All nature may exist to help humans, but it exists to help humans contemplate and worship God. And while the tradition may have a hierarchical view of reality, humans weren't at the top, but had angels above them, and then God.

Bauckham's smack down argument though, is that the Christian tradition saw all creation as belonging to the Creator God.
“This came to expression most clearly in the belief that all creation worships God and that human worship is participation in that worship of God by all creation” (140) This is seen in the Benedictine Dan 3:52-90(LXX only). Or if you don't like the LXX, Psalm 148 and other Psalms.
Medieval Christians, familiar with both of these for their worship, would have a strong sense of their horizontal, creaturely relationship with the rest of creation, all existing for the glory of God.
Bauckham adds a section on stories of the relationship of saints and animals, a popular form of piety in medieval times that would have influenced thinking as much as any academic. While the stories have an implicit understanding of human dominion over nature, that dominion is most often expressed as a harmony between the saint and nature, restoring a eden-like relationship. The saints care for the animals, feeding and protecting them, the animals care for the saints. The attitude of the saints (especially St Francis of Assisi) is praise for God, with the creation and for the creation.

So can we smugly wash our hands of responsibility for the ecological crisis? Not quite.

Bauckham lay the blame firstly at the feet of Renaissance humanists. He claims that in humanism “Humanity's place within creation is abolished in favour of humanity's exaltation over creation... Human beings are understood as uniquely free to make of themselves what they will and to transcend all limits. In effect humanity becomes a kind of god in relation to the world.” (155)
Bauckhams greatest target is Francis Bacon
“Reading Bacon is to experience frequent shocks of recognition as one finds all too familiar features of the modern scientific enteprise already clearly stated by him” (164)
While Bacon had respect for the reality of nature as it has been given to us, his whole enterprise was about gaining knowledge of the Laws of nature so that it could be exploited for the benefit of humans. Knowledge is power.
“I am come in very truth leading you to Nature with all her children to bind her to your service and make her your slave” Bacon in Bauckham (160)
Bacon's interpretation of Genesis 1 was to take the description of dominion as an historical task to be achieved. We are command to subdue, to dominate, to use.
While Bacon saw the restoration of our innocence after the fall as the work of religion, the restoration of our dominion was the work of the scientific enterprise. After this division, it was a small step to jettison the religious claims and to see humans sole goal as conquering nature.


What are we to do as Christians who live in a world so shaped by Bacon's ideas?

One response is to emphasise Christian stewardship of nature, as though we help and enable it to praise God better. Bauckham traces this idea to the late seventeenth century. He sees some value in the idea, but is wary of it as simply a different form of domination over creation.
Barth has similar sentiments “It may well be that the universe in its movements from those of the heavenly bodies to those of the red and white blood corpuscles in our veins not to speak of the infinitesimal units out of which everything is constructed, it may be that this hallows the name of God infinitely more seriously then in anything that comes into consideration among and by men” CD IV/4 #77


Bauckham finds some answer in Biblical notions of authority over humans. In Deuteronomy 17, if Israel is to have a king at all, then he is to remember that he is a brother. “His rule becomes tyranny the moment he forgets that the horizontal relationship of brother/sisterhood is primary, and kingship secondary” (174). Though humanity is distinguished, it's humanity is firmly within, not over creation. It is the meek who will inherit the earth, to serve and preserve it.


Reading through the article a second time ( to summarise here), I wondered how the incarnation and Jesus' humanity and Lordship over creation fitted into this picture.

Nevertheless, it made me look at the world outside my balcony in a different way, as I saw a little wattle bird, praising God in his own way, just by being a wattle bird.

How do you think we can cultivate this idea of praising God with the creation in our churches?