I recently wrote a paper covering the issue of environmental ethics. It came out very well on most accounts. My failure? Representing our Lord.
It’s not that I argued something against our faith, but I didn’t argue anything for it either. I actually never thought to until I was reviewing for the class final and read a small excerpt from the text concerning an idea entitled deep ecology. It goes as follows:
The intuition of biocentric equality is that all things in the biosphere have an equal right to live and blossom and to reach their own individual forms of unfolding and self-realization within the larger Self-realization…Aldo Leopold expressed this intuition when he said humans are “plain citizens” of the biotic community, not lord and master over all other species.
As soon as I read this, I realized how un-Christian this was and promptly slapped myself for not arguing against it. The problem with arguing a Christian ethic on this issue is the baggage that accompanies it, not because Christ did something wrong (how could that ever be construed?), or even the church, but because currently many people blame our present environmental state on Biblical teachings. Genesis 1:28 is often cited:
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
It is argued that because of this verse, our country wrecked havoc upon our natural resources. After all, we were mostly Christian at that time and if Scripture tells us to do something, by golly we will. Hopefully as Christians, we would follow the teachings of scripture; unfortunately this is not always the case. We often neglect to love our neighbor as ourselves or to turn the other cheek. But what about Genesis 1:28, how does the Christian defend this apparently anthropocentric view?
First of all, this verse is a command from God (since we are speaking of Christians who believe in the truth of scripture, it is appropriate to say this), so it is not human centered but God centered.
Secondly, it appears that when people shoot down this verse, they forget the full analogy being used. Yes this verse essentially turns men and women into kings and queens of the natural world, but it does not follow that this is a bad thing. We assume that Genesis 1:28 gives the right to a dictatorship, and so abuses will follow. It is forgotten that there is such a thing as a good ruler. We have had horrible presidents in our nation, but that does not mean that we should get rid of that seat of authority and place every on the same level. There are still the good presidents that bring our nation together.
Third, although humans may be given an elevated position in scripture, this does not remove value and worth from the rest of creation. After each day in the creation story, what was made is called good. After the last day, “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Rather than giving a free reign on nature, scripture gives Christians a responsibility to take care of that which God loves.
It seems that a deep ecology could in some ways be problematic. If we are all “plain citizens of the biotic community” as Leopold argues, does that not avoid responsibility? The president or an ambassador of our nation has a much greater responsibility when interacting with other nations than a citizen does because of the power and knowledge that they hold. The chief of the police has a much greater responsibility to keep the streets safe for the same reason. Just because we call ourselves “plain citizens” does not mean nature will be more protected than if we have a lord and master mentality.
