[1] At the beginning of our task force's work on what became
Caring for Creation I hoped that the result of our efforts
would be a fundamentally theological statement on the
environment. This was not a foregone conclusion. A
serious treatment of ecological issues had to take into account
scientific, technological, economic, and political realities as
well as theological and ethical concerns. The gravity of
earth's environmental crisis could have led us to focus on problems
and proposed solutions in a way that differed little from
essentially secular studies of these
matters.
[2] Fortunately, my initial hope was realized. While the
statement looked at the actual condition of the environment in the
real world and urged some specific actions, all of that was set in
a matrix of reflection on Lutheran understandings of God's
creation, salvation, and hallowing of the world.1 Our scientific,
political, and economic assessments of environmental issues may
change (and today they are not identical with those of ten years
ago), but Caring for Creation will have permanent
value.
[3] Of course the ELCA has not been alone in this work.
Our contacts with the Presbyterian Eco-Justice Task Force were
helpful and the resources they had developed were
helpful,2 and other mainline
churches have made statements and taken actions for environmental
stewardship.
[4] That is now ten years in the past. How do things look
now? In some ways they seem worse than they did a decade ago,
and therein lies a tale of special significance for our
church. I would like to point out two important tasks for the
church in the years ahead.
[5] Policies advocated by the present administration in
Washington, and by leaders in Congress, have caused a great deal of
concern to environmentalists. Proposals for oil drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, weakening of clean air
standards and modification of rules for logging in national forests
(under the "Healthy Forests" rubric) followed abandonment of the
Kyoto Protocol on global warming. There is some irony in the
fact that the Northwest Forest Plan, which was adopted at the time
that the ELCA approved Caring for Creation, now seems at
the tenth anniversary of that statement to be in
danger.3
[6] Those who have a genuine concern for creation will, of
course, not all have exactly the same views about the wisdom of
each of these or other environmental matters, but the general
pattern is disturbing. Attitudes seem very different than
they did in 1970 when President Nixon signed the National
Environmental Policy Act.
[7] One reason for pursuing policies which damage the
environment and deplete natural resources is obvious - short-term
economic gain. This is a human, and not merely a capitalist,
failing. (The environmental record of the former Soviet Union
was dreadful.4) But in the
United States the problem has to be addressed in a capitalist
context. I'll return to this issue shortly.
[8] What is of special interest in the present context is the
religious background of these problematic attitudes toward the
environment. President Bush is a Christian who wants to
be known as a "compassionate conservative," and other members of
his administration and leaders in Congress are conservative
Christians of various sorts. We can be happy that these
leaders hold the Christian faith, but types of theology by which
they have been influenced exhibit some serious defects, especially
when it comes to environmental issues.5 Benefits for
humanity and extraction of resources seem always to take precedence
over the long-term welfare of the natural world. Some
Christians not only minimize the need for environmental stewardship
but are downright hostile to the environmental movement, seeing it
as an expression of New Age paganism.6
[9] To some this will seem just another illustration of Lynn
White's well-known thesis that the idea of human "dominion" over
the earth in Genesis 1:28 is largely to blame for the ecological
crisis. There is a good deal of truth in this - we should
emphasize that the problem arises out of the failure of Christians
to reach an adequate theological understanding of what "dominion"
should mean. But there are other aspects of the problem as
well. Rejecting of biological evolution and maintaining a
belief that the earth is only a few thousand (instead of a few
billion) years old require that science be distorted, and this can
play into the hands of those who want to believe that there is no
environmental crisis.
[10] Over the past ten years Caring for Creation has helped to
conscientize members of the ELCA about environmental stewardship,
as statements by other Christian communities have done in those
bodies. We should note in particular that there are strong
statements from the Evangelical tradition about care for
creation.7 But it's clear that we
have to do more than simply influence members of mainline
churches.
[11] Some of our effort needs to be directed toward discussion
with Christians who have been indifferent or hostile to
environmental concerns. This would be a different type of
ecumenical work from that which has had, as its long-term goal, the
reunion of the churches. That ought to remain the larger
context of such discussions, but there is some urgency about
changing the attitudes of Christians who influence and make public
policy.
[12] At the same time, the ELCA and other churches which have
taken responsible environmental positions must continue to present
those positions in the public arena. We must make it clear
that they are positions grounded in fundamental Christian
convictions about God and the world. And we should not
hesitate to say that some popular religious beliefs, like the idea
that God will always make sure we have the resources we want, no
matter what we do, are sub-Christian.8
[13] This type of theological discussion and - to be blunt -
polemic is necessary. At the same time, I believe the church
has another important task. I already noted the powerful
economic factors involved in the environmental crisis. While
there is not a simple tradeoff between economic benefits and
environmental protection, we have to be straightforward about the
fact that care for creation will cost people something. That
shouldn't be surprising to Christians, who are called to be willing
to lose their lives for the Christ's sake. If that is the
case then we certainly have to be willing to forego some profits
for the sake of the world for which Christ died. "The cost of
discipleship" is a phrase familiar to many people as the English
title given to the Macmillan edition of Bohhoeffer's
Nachfolge. Christians need to realize that, in
particular, there will be a cost of environmental discipleship.
© September 2003
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 3, Issue 9
1 An abbreviated version of a theological background paper
for Caring for Creation prepared by a sub-group composed of Peter
Bakken, Diane Jacobson, George L. Murphy and Paul Santmire was
published as "A Theological Basis for Earthcare" in Lutheran Forum
27.2, Pentecost 1993, 24.
2 Keeping and Healing the Creation (Presbyterian Church
[U.S.A.], 1989).
3 A study by the Gifford Pinchot Task Force is available
at http://www.gptaskforce.org/article.php?id=147.
4 John Massey Stewart (ed.), The Soviet Environment
(Cambridge, 1992).
5 Glenn Scherer, "Religious Wrong," E Magazine XIV.3,
May/June 2003, 35, is a political rather than a theological study
but some of the religious ideas about the environment described
here are alarming.
6 E.g., Constance Cumbey, Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow
(Huntington House, 1983).
7 E.g., Fred Van Dyke et al., Redeeming Creation
(InterVarsity, 1996).
8 Some ideas of this sort are cited in Scherer, "Religious
Wrong," p.37.