Dominion, Stewardship, and the End of the World – David Horrell & Anna Davis

Dominion, Stewardship, and the End of the World: The influence of biblical texts on Christian attitudes towards the Environment 

David Horrell and Anna Davis, University of Exeter

The term ‘stewardship’ is commonly used to summarise Christian beliefs about responsibility towards the environment. GCSE textbook Christianity in Today’s World (2005: 71), for example, states that: ‘According to the creation story human beings are given a special responsibility within creation: to cultivate and guard it – to be “good stewards”’, and quotes Genesis 1.27-31 and 2.15 as key biblical texts supporting this position. The aim of this piece is to deepen and problematise such a view, asking: How do biblical texts shape Christian attitudes towards the environment? Are these attitudes always ‘good’ from the point of view of environmental responsibility? and What is the range of diversity among contemporary Christian groups?

Environmental issues such as climate change are now among the most urgent subjects of global concern. Although some remain sceptical, it is increasingly difficult to deny the existence of these problems, and that human action is their primary cause. A range of reasons explains the causes of environmental degradation, including technological development, increasing consumption and growth in the human population, but the influence of religion is also important: religions of whatever kind shape their adherents’ ‘worldview’ – their attitudes and beliefs concerning themselves, their role and purpose, in relation to the world we all inhabit.

For medieval historian Lynn White Jr., the Christian worldview has proven to be particularly problematic in terms of the relationship between humans and the environment. In 1967, he published the provocative article ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis’, in which he argued that Christianity is responsible for having introduced a dualism between humanity and nature, and establishing the idea that it is God’s will that humanity exploit nature to serve human interests. For White, Christianity therefore bears ‘a huge burden of guilt’ for introducing the anthropocentric (‘human-centred’) Western worldview that has permitted and promoted the active and aggressive conquest of nature by humanity. However, White does not call for the rejection of religion, but rather argues that we need to rethink our religious attitudes towards the environment: ‘Human ecology’, he writes, ‘is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny — that is, by religion… More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one’ (1205-206).

White’s criticisms of Christianity implicitly highlight Genesis 1.26-28 as a particular problem, as the idea of being made ‘in the image of God’, and also the command to ‘have dominion’ over all other living things, appear to mark humans out from the rest of creation. This passage has profoundly shaped Christian views of the status of human beings, and during the rise of modern science from the 15^th and 16^th centuries onwards, it was interpreted as inspiring a human ‘vocation’ to understand and to seek to control nature. Environmental stewardship was not on the agenda, since the problems that make it relevant were hardly then apparent.

More recently, Christian environmentalists have sought to address this potentially problematic legacy by reinterpreting the passage so that the role of humanity comes to be seen not as one of domination but rather as one of responsible stewardship. The idea of stewardship is now a central concept in much environmental ethics and theology, notably among Evangelical groups. Indeed, it is often assumed that the Bible, and Genesis 1-2 in particular, directly instructs us to be stewards of the earth. One of the ‘Trail Guide’ Bible studies in The Green Bible, for example,states that ‘[the] stewardship role is important enough that it is mentioned several times in the creation narrative’ (p. 1226), and the command in Genesis 2.15 to ‘till and keep’ the Garden of Eden is often employed in support of such statements. For supporters of the stewardship ideal, earlier readings of the biblical texts are now seen as ‘misunderstandings’ in need of correction – although the ‘stewardship’ reading, like earlier interpretations, is influenced by its modern context, and is in fact open to question and doubt.

Indeed, the idea of stewardship is not without its difficulties as a biblically-based Christian ethic. Contrary to popular belief, the term ‘steward’ does not actually appear in Genesis 1, and is actually used rather little in the Bible, and never to define, explicitly, what the human relationship to creation ought to be. Some biblical scholars, such as Norman Habel (2000: 46-47), argue that the Hebrew words radah (‘rule, have dominion over’) and kabash (‘subdue’) used in Genesis 1.26-28 indicate a harsh domination of the earth by humans, and that attempts to soften this to a form of stewardship are unconvincing. For others, stewardship forms a problematic basis for environmental ethics. Clare Palmer, for example, argues that the term mistakenly implies ‘that the natural world is a human resource, that humans are really in control of nature, that nature is dependent on humanity for its management’ (Palmer 1992: 77-78).

Christian attitudes towards the environment can also be shaped by some of the biblical visions of the future. In 2 Peter 3, for example, we are told that ‘the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed…’ (v. 10). Furthermore, the author urges his readers to live in such a way that they will ‘hasten’ the end, since they look forward to the time when a ‘new heavens and a new earth’ will appear (vv. 12-13). For some, this final end will be preceded by a ‘rapture’ of Christians from the earth. So why, some may ask, should we care for the earth if it is soon to be destroyed, and if God’s plan is to rescue a small number of faithful humans and grant them eternal life in heaven? Such beliefs can lead to the suggestion that preserving and caring for the earth is not a priority for Christians, who should be more concerned with evangelising in order to convert people to Christianity and thus save them from damnation. The ‘Resisting the Green Dragon’ project, for example, sees environmentalism as a great (satanic) threat to true Christian faith, warning believers against it. Similar beliefs are particularly prominent among Fundamentalist and conservative Evangelical Christian groups in the USA, and have probably influenced anti-environmental policies and decisions. It is not surprising, then, that conservation biologist David Orr (2005: 291) has suggested that ‘belief in the imminence of the end times tends to make evangelicals careless stewards of our forests, soils, wildlife, air, water, seas and climate’.

Once again, however, different perspectives have been proposed. Just as Genesis 1–2 has been re-read as a text teaching environmental stewardship, so Christian environmentalists have sought to reclaim these texts that teach about the end of the world by arguing that they do not envisage the destruction of the earth but rather its transformation. God, they argue, is in the process of ‘making all things new’ (Rev 21.5), and this implies that humans should indeed care for creation, joining in with the purpose and activity of God to transform the earth into a place of righteousness, justice and peace. As Evangelical writer Thomas Finger (1998: 1) puts it: ‘[i]f the present creation will not be destroyed but renewed, it would seem important to care for it today’. But despite such pleas, it remains possible to believe that if God will redeem the earth and transform it to a renewed creation, then we need not be too concerned about the impact of our own actions.

Finally, contemporary environmental concerns have led people to appeal to a variety of different biblical texts which seem to offer greater potential for the construction of a positive Christian engagement with the environment. In Romans 8:19-23, for example, Paul writes of the whole creation longing for its liberation. Job 38—41 depicts God’s concern for all the diverse wonders of creation, with humans seen as rather insignificant and less ‘special’ than we like to imagine. In Psalms 148, the whole of creation is depicted as joining in the praise of God. Genesis 9: 8-17 speaks of God’s covenant with the whole earth, not just with humans. None of these texts gives a blueprint for environmental ethics: they were written in an ancient world with different presumptions and priorities from our own, and do not simply set out what Christians living in an age of climate change should believe and do. But they do help to generate a positive vision of the value, beauty, and ultimate worth of the whole earth, and this can perhaps inspire and undergird a positive ecological stance and committed environmental action.

In conclusion, a number of points may be stressed, particularly in view of the understandable tendency in text-books and syllabi to imply a rather simplistic view that certain biblical texts clearly teach Christians to be good stewards:

• Biblical texts are generally open to various interpretations, and these have often changed over time and remain contested today.
• Biblical texts have probably influenced some Christians not to prioritise care for the environment, as well as supporting more positive stances.
• While ‘stewardship’ may be taken as what the Bible implies about human responsibility towards the world, this is not explicitly stated as such, and there are critical questions to consider about whether it is a good basis for environmental ethics.
• Many mainstream churches (and charities) do stress stewardship as environmental responsibility. But some Evangelical or Fundamentalist groups (particularly in the USA) think the focus should be on evangelism, and reject the claims and approach of environmentalism.

For more information on this topic, together with a selection of lesson plans and activities, see the ‘Beyond Stewardship’ website: http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/theology/research/projects/beyondstewardship/

Underpinning the website is a book covering a range of approaches to biblical texts and their environmental implications:

Horrell, David G. 2010. The Bible and the Environment. London & Oakville, CT: Equinox.

References

Finger, Thomas. 1998. Evangelicals, Eschatology, and the Environment. The Scholars Circle; Wynnewood, PA: Evangelical Environmental Network.

Habel, Norman C. 2000. ‘Geophany: The Earth Story in Genesis 1’. In Norman C. Habel and Shirley Wurst (eds). The Earth Story in Genesis. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 34-48.

Orchard, Janet, Deborah Weston, Sally Lynch and Claire Clinton. 2005. Christianity in Today’s World. London: Hodder Education.

Orr, David W. 2005. ‘Armageddon Versus Extinction’. Conservation Biology 19, no. 2: 290-92.

Palmer, Clare. 1992. ‘Stewardship: A Case Study in Environmental Ethics’. In Ian Ball et al. The Earth Beneath: A Critical Guide to Green Theology. London: SPCK, 67-86.

The Green Bible. 2008. London & New York: HarperCollins.

White, Lynn Jr. 1967. The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis. Science 155, no. 3767: 1203-207.