Here is a picture of some of Christie's family and neighbors on a nature walk that Christie led on her family's property in Iowa in the Spring of 2004.

            I am fascinated by the role that theology and religion play within environmental decision making. Especially the language involved in such decision making. By holding to certain religious beliefs, are humans in fact given the ok to subdue and overtake all of nature and its endless supply of resources for the benefit of all humans, even to the point of blatant exploitation? Simultaneously, by holding to very similar religious beliefs, are humans called to see all of the natural world as precious, as having incomparably delectable beauty, as being an intricately designed gift with which humans must co-exist with and protect?

            Genesis 2:15 says,  “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.” To my ear, this sounds like a call to keep the earth wisely, in good condition, tending to it, preserving it. But what does keep acually mean? I looked it up in the Oxford dictionary and found there to be eighteen different definitions for the word keep: 

           1) have continuous charge of

               2) retain; reserve for future occasion

               3) remain in specified condition, position

               4) store

               5) hold back

               6) detain

               7) observe, honor

               8) own, look after

               9) maintain with a supply of

              10) manage

              11) maintain regularly and in proper order

              12) have regularly for sale

              13) guard or protect

              14) preserve in being

              15) continue; repeat habitually

              16) continue to follow

              17) remain fresh; not spoil

              18) maintain

            It’s no wonder that this passage in the book of Genesis gets interpreted so varyingly. Within our language there is such ambiguity of terminology; so many multiple meanings. So, it seems that any treatment of nature, be it wise or not, could be justified according to the way words like keep are defined.  Perhaps, for some people, the way they define such words changes when they will benefit from altering the definition. For instance, someone who finds themselves in a position to become wealthy by logging a huge plot of old growth forest with no intent to replant may change their definition of keep from: to guard or protect, to: have continuous charge of, or even: detain.

            Within the Hebrew language there can be sometimes three or more different meanings for a word. For instance, ruach could mean wind, spirit, or breath. Also, the word ‘abad has three meanings: till/tend the ground; to serve someone; or to honor someone as in worship. Is it possible for a word to mean three different things? Possibly, but acknowledgement of this fact could allow for too much freedom when it comes to defining key words, which may lead to unwise actions in environmental decision making. Each word contains not only its obvious meaning, but also a conglomeration of connotations, that when approached through a religious lens could be bent to fit one’s own desire. This freedom within word-bending has often been the root of justified detrimental things done to nature.

            It is a universal truth that all living things modify their contexts. Yet, that doesn’t mean that humans should just give up and say, “The effect we have on nature is irreversibly bad, so why even try to prevent it?” On the contrary. Since we know that all life-forms modify their environment, we should push hard to avoid detrimentally effecting our limited-resource home. What if everyone tried to live in such a way as to have the least impact on the earth? To help myself get a grasp on what kind of lifestyle changes this would entail, I recently took an on-line quiz to figure out my “ecological footprint”, the measurement of the impact (probably negative) I am having on our planet. Even thinking of myself as one of the more green people in our society, I was disgusted to find that my results showed that if everyone in the world lived like me, we’d need 1.8 planets to sustain ourselves. I have an 8-acre footprint. The average ecological footprint in our country is 24 acres/person. Worldwide, there exist 4.5 biologically productive acres/person. Calculate it for yourself.                      

The ecology of humans is deeply shaped by our religious beliefs. So, shouldn’t all who attest to religious belief consider the way they define their words? Are we in fact using skewed definitions of key words to justify our self-indulgent, anthrpocentric actions?