A Response to Dr. Richard Land

The following remarks were given in at “God Is Great. Is God Green? A Conference on Evangelicals and the Environmental Task.”  They are in response to Dr. Richard Land’s presentation, “A Theology of Creation and the Environment”  The conference took place in Washington, DC on November 14, 2008.

I wish to say thank you to the organizers, Jim [Tonkowich] and others, of this conference for inviting me to respond to Dr. Land. I appreciate the opportunity to engage the very important issues raised by his paper. My response is organized around a series of questions posed to Dr. Land. There are three.

First, what do you mean by “creation and the environment”? The phrase appears in the title and twice on page two. For example, “a truly biblical view of creation and the environment.” But it is unclear, at least to me, what you mean by that. Are these terms synonymous?  If so, what is to be gained by adding “the environment”? If not, then what exactly is the difference?

In my view, “environment” is a sterile and abstract term that implies humans are not part of the world, that we humans live over against all other creatures. But we don’t live, do we, in “an environment “? We live on this earth, our home, our home planet. One part of God’s creation.

Wendell Berry writes:

The idea that we live in something called “the environment,” for instance, is utterly preposterous. This word came into use because of the pretentiousness of learned experts who were embarrassed by the religious associations of “creation” and who thought “world” too mundane. But “environment” means that which surrounds or encircles us. It means a world separate from ourselves, outside us. The real state of things, of course, is far more complex and complicated and intimate and interesting than that. The world that environs us, that is around us, is also within us. We are made of it. We eat, drink, and breathe it. It is bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh. It is also a creation. A holy mystery, made for and to some extent by creatures, some but by no means all of whom are humans. This world, this creation belongs in a limited sense to us, for we may rightfully require certain things of it. The things necessary to keep us fully alive as the kind of creatures we are. But we also belong to it. And it makes certain rightful claims on us. That we care properly for it, that we leave it undiminished, not just to our children, but to all of the creatures who will live in it after us. None of this intimacy and responsibility is conveyed by the word “environment.”

This matter of terminology is anything but trivial. As an ancient Chinese proverb puts it—I had this quote in the front of my logic course when I taught in a philosophy department years ago—“Whoever defines the terms, wins the argument.” The language we use is absolutely crucial to properly understanding these issues. As Dr. Land correctly asserts, quoting Francis Sheaffer, people “do what they think.” But our thinking is shaped by our speaking. The words and thus concepts we use to describe the place in which we find ourselves. So, for the title, why not just a theology of creation? Or, since God’s creation includes quite a bit more than the earth, and we ought not be presumptuous, why not a theology of and for the earth?

Second, what do you mean by saying that “God has placed human beings first in the created order”? In what sense exactly are we first? We do not have the sight of an eagle or the strength of the lion. We do not run like a gazelle or swim like a dolphin. We cannot hear like a bat or smell like a bear. In all these ways and more, we humans are clearly not first, if by “first” one clearly means preeminent. What do you mean by humans being first?

Twice you speak of “the primacy of humanity.” You base your argument on a reading of Genesis 1:26-28, in which you seem to equate dominion—“God gave human beings dominion”—with domination: “These are strong, dominant words.” An equation of dubious merit, but you augment this argument with an appeal to the Genesis 2 narration when you claim, “The primacy of humanity in God’s creation is further underscored by the fact that God created Adam prior to God having prepared his habitation—the garden.”

However, you’ve already acknowledged, with references to Genesis 1:1-2:4, that God’s having created the world before God created human beings implied that the non-human world has value irrespective of its relationship to humans. So which is it? Is your claim that humans are “first in the created order” a matter of temporal precedence or not? Does being first give value or not? If so, which creation narrative do you privilege and why? If not, then what does give humans this status?

And does dominion mean domination? If so, how does that square with Genesis 2:15, which properly translated means “to serve and protect,” the motto on the side of every Chicago police cruiser? Having lived in Chicago for seven years, I took great pride and humor in every time seeing a Chicago police car, [as] they are, without realizing it, quoting the Bible. In this city where I quickly learned you vote early and often. Even the dead vote, usually more than once. Here’s the last line of Genesis 2:15: this is on the side of every police car. Avadh and shamar, as you know, are the Hebrew words there. “To serve and protect,” not only for the humans—as you declare, which is indeed the case—but also for the good of our non-human neighbors. In short, how exactly should we describe ourselves?

To further support your claim about “human preeminence and responsibility,” you refer to the story of the flood. While you mention in passing the covenant with every living creature (nephesh in the Hebrew)—indeed between God and the earth, erets, found in Genesis 9—you you make no other comment about it. Why not? Why no further comment on this most important text? You also mention Psalm 8, with its description of all that is under human dominion, but you fail to mention Psalm 72, which describes proper rule of a just king. Dominion, not as domination, but as service to those under one’s charge, especially those most vulnerable. The widows, the orphans, the alien, so called, in the Old Testament.

All this raises this question: What is the best term? An image for describing who we humans are and what we are called to do. Yes we are vice regents, made in God’s image, but we’re also dust of the earth: adam from the adamah, Genesis 2. Humans from the humus. A pun there in the Hebrew, which we miss in the English, picked up with the Latin. And here I recommend Rich Littleton’s book The Liberating Image (Brazos  Press, 2005) [as] the definitive study, for decades I suspect, for what it means to be made in God’s image from a biblical point of view. Yes, we’re called to exercise dominion. No argument there. A very important claim, especially against certain environmental groups. But we’re also called to serve and protect.

I realize I’m in a minority opinion here, especially among evangelical environmentalists, but I’m not persuaded “steward” is the best term, given how it’s been used and abused by those who would have us ignore the “divinely mandated limitations” that you rightly call to our attention.

Third and last, what do you mean by “all life deserves respect”? What concretely does such an ethic of respect look like? You state that while we “have the right to domesticate and raise cattle and other livestock for human sustenance,” we “do not have the right to act in a callous, cruel or cavalier manner toward any living creature.” So does that imply that Christians should not eat veal or purchase chicken that comes from confined animal feeding organizations or operations?

We have the right, you argue, to “use, as painlessly as possible, animals in research to better human health,” but we “do not have the right to abuse animals or cause them discomfort merely to develop new cosmetics.” So is it permissible for Christians to use monkeys in cancer research? How about rats in the search for a cure for Alzheimer’s? Is it permissible to use rabbits to develop new eyeliner? How about something lower down the phylogenetic scale, maybe frogs? Does smallpox deserve respect?

I take it a distinction you wish to use here is between genuine human needs and mere human wants or desires, giving greater value to the former over the latter. Fair enough. But do only human needs count? As I know from sitting on my own college’s animal care and use committee, broad ethical principles are fine, but the devil is in the details and so is God.

By way of conclusion, I agree that we Christians must “repent of our past insensitivity and neglect.” While the Christian faith is most certainly not ecologically bankrupt, as some claim—and I have rebutted these folks in print in various places—we Christians have been complicit in much ecological woe and thus have much to confess. We cannot escape culpability of our ecological sins of omission and commission, neglect and abuse. Contrary to what many believe—including many Christians, I’m afraid—we have a faith rich in ecological wisdom. And Richard [Land] has pointed to numerous texts. If only we have the eyes to see, and this wisdom is found throughout the Bible.

Again, and by way of conclusion, I quote Wendell Berry:

However just it [the conservationist indictment of Christianity] may be, it does not come from an adequate understanding of the Bible and the cultural traditions that descend from the Bible. The anti-Christian conservationists characteristically deal with the Bible by waving it off, and this dismissal conceals, as such dismissals are apt to do, an ignorance that invalidates it. But the anti-Christian environmentalists have not mastered the first rule of the criticism of books: you have to read them before you criticize them. Our predicament now, I believe, requires us to read and understand the Bible in the light of the present fact of creation.

I pray that our efforts at this gathering will inspire us to learn to read both the book of Scripture and the book of nature, that we may more faithfully bear witness to God’s good future of shalom and bring glory to God. May it be so.