Regardless of the fact that my inquiries in town actually may suggest that the more religious the person, the less concern they have for the environment, I would like to argue that as a Christian, it is one’s duty to protect the creation of the LORD.  And despite criticism that the bible seems almost anti-environment in places, that there is indeed a strong, biblically-based environmental ethic that can and should be developed among Christians.

God is love.   And because love is a relational word, it requires an object.  (Bear with me for a second.)  God’s creation is his work of art.  As an artist rejoices over his/her work, so also does God rejoice over us.  We, as humans may be his masterpiece, but the bible also says that the whole earth is full of God’s glory (Isaiah 6:3).  He cares about all of His creation - not even one sparrow falls to the ground without Him knowing (Matthew 10:29).  Our God loves His creation.  And we are the object of His affection.

In genesis, God creates the world and refers to his whole creation as “good.”   He then gives humanity dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:28):

God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

When I first read verses like this, I completely understand why some have accused Christianity of being “ecologically bankrupt”  (McFague, 30). And because the Bible seems to use such varying terms to describe the world we live in, there tends to be an unavoidable ambiguity that the Christian feels about the world (Murphy, 15).  It is described as a sad place of sin and death.  But it’s also “full of God’s glory.”

However, I don’t see the Christianity as being “ecologically bankrupt” at all.  In fact, as far as Genesis 1:28 goes, I can’t imagine that the term “dominion” had a negative connotation associated with it until after the fall – it did not signify any harm or mistreatment of animals.  Before the fall, humans did not know any sin.  After the fall, humans' sinfulness was what caused them to realize they could take advantage of the special role God had given them.  In other words, negative associations with the word "dominion" are human-made.

Imagine a king and queen, both of whom have dominion over their kingdom.  Does the word dominion in this sense bring positive or negative thoughts to mind?  A good king and queen will exercise dominion over the land in a way that is beneficial for their people.  They will use their power to love and lift up their people.  A bad king and queen might on the other hand exploit their people and take advantage of their power.

I believe we were supposed to have dominion over the earth in the same way that God had dominion over us – lovingly; realizing that we are going to exercise our free will, yet coming to our aid when we cry for help. Proverbs 12:10 even says “the righteous know the needs of their animals.”

There is a type of ministry, called prophetic ministry, which focuses primarily on Jesus’ ministry to the oppressed and his death as a consequence of this solidarity most liberation theology falls into this category (McFague, 33).  Let me stress that I am not advocating what is or could be perceived as ideology, but since Christians ought strive to live in a Christ-like manner, I believe liberation theologians make some valid points about aiming to help the poor and oppressed.  And following in these steps, one must realize that it is almost impossible to separate environmental problems from societal problems with oppression.

If you read Katie Harrod’s project, you will find that the people who had a problem with the continued expansion of the business district were the town business owners, with small stores, many of which are run by families.  The business owners outside of town are the ones who are all upset that Northfield isn’t developing more rapidly.  And their reasons are purely economic.

It is not necessarily easy for one to sacrifice for the poor and oppressed.  And it is not easy to sacrifice for others for whom the earth and its natural beauty is important, especially for the affluent.  (In America, the majority of us are considerred to be "affluent" by the world's standards.)  Our consumer culture defines the “abundant life” as one in which “natural resources” are sacrificed for human profit and pleasure and “human resources” are the employees who will work for the lowest wages (McFague, 36).  And as Katie Harrod explains, this is happening in Northfield right now.

For affluent Christians, one should adopt a different understanding of abundance, one that embraces the contradiction of the cross: giving up one’s life to find it, limitation and diminishment, sharing and giving – indeed, sacrifice.  This sacrifice is summed up in Charles Birch’s pithy statement, “the rich must live more simply that the poor may simply live” (McFague, 36).

We must know what helped different life forms flourish, how the health of human beings and nature’s health are interrelated, what sustainability involves in different bioregions, how economics interfaces with ecology, what limits and reductions are required of wealthy individuals and nations so that poorer ones can have a fair share.  In other words, Christians need to become more “ecologically literate”  in order to embody an ecological Christology appropriately and justly (McFague, 40).

There is scientific evidence for the ecological interdependence of all forms of life…  human self interest requires that we consider the impact of our actions on other life forms.  Genesis asserts the goodness and unity of the created order.  Jesus’ life which should be modeled by Christians presents an alternative vision of the good life that is less consumptive than current patterns in industrial nations (Ian Barbour, 386).

Jesus taught us that two basic commandments would sum up all of the rules he ever wanted us to live by – love God and love our neighbors as ourselves.  We are not loving our neighbors very well when all we care about it economic growth.  We have grown to prefer urbanization and expansion over all of the needs of the planet on which we live, and finances over God’s glory.  Our worship of money is idolatrous.  We are the man in the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:15-21):
 

15 And he said to them, "Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions." 16   Then he told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly.  17 And he thought to himself, "What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?'   18 Then he said, "I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.'  20 But God said to him, "You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'  21 So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God."

Urbanization, which brings about habitat fragmentation, and subsequently the possible loss of biodiversity and extinction of parts of God’s creation, is furthered by a consumeristic, and overly affluent, society that values economics over all else.  This needs to change.  We must turn from ecological selfishness and live a different “abundant life”  (McFague, 43).

Interestingly enough, asian scholars, such as Kwok Pui-lan, observe that nature is a major theme in Asian religious traditions, and to live in harmony with nature has been the vision and ideal for philosophers, artists, and intellectuals… for millennia.  Kwok reads the New Testament, especially the gospels, as being a lot less anthropocentric than do westerners.  “I do not think these natural images (of the groaning and moaning of creation) are just rhetorical devices or embellishments of Jesus’ teaching because I think they are an inseparable part of his message…[However] I agree that we should not make Jesus into a nature lover, modeled after current New Age gurus. (Kwok, 48)

I believe it would be hard, even for a "westerner," to deny the interdependence we have with the earth.  "The human comes from the ground and the ground produces the food the human consumes; the ground is unproductive without rain – the natural processes and seasons over which humans have no control – and the close and careful tending of humans.  It is a mutual dependence, an interdependence – neither party in the partnership is complete, able to reach its potential and live fully, without the other" (Shirley Wurst, 91).

Everyday, Christians confess with their tongues, through the lyrics they recite, (many of which are based out of the book of Psalms) that the earth is worthy to be loved.  Every Sunday we sing songs about flowers, forests, and even unliving things, displaying God’s glory, as well as showing signs of praising God.  This is not only biblical, but it goes above and beyond the call, “let everything that has breath praise the LORD” (psalm 150:6).  It is aligned with Psalms 66:4, which says "all the earth worships you; they sing praises to you, sing praises to your name."

I believe an ethic for the environment is absolutely necessary in parts of the world where people choose to urbanize and expand for the sake of economic benefit, leaving "God's glory" in shambles.  And not only do I not believe that the bible is anti-environment, I think I have argued convincingly that Christians can hold an  environmental ethic which is also part of a Christian ethic.  The two sets of beliefs don't have to conflict.
 

*All bible verses are either New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translations or The New King James translations taken from http://www.devotions.net/bible/00bible.htm