133
Institute
for Christian Teaching
Education
Department of Seventh-day Adventists
A CREATION PERSPECTIVE ON
ECONOMICS,
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRON
by
536-03 Institute for
Christian Teaching 12501 Old Columbia
Pike Silver Spring, MD
20904 USA
Prepared for the
31st
International Seminar on the Integration of Faith and Learning
July 2003
|
Today most literate people are well aware of the problems afflicting
the Earth's biophysical environment: problems of species extinction, habitat
destruction, land degradation, and pollution of the waters and the atmosphere.
The blight of Waldsterben - forest death - for example, has cast its grey
shadow across southern
In November 1992, five months after the first Earth Summit
had convened at
Human beings and the
natural world are on a collision course.
Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the
environment and on critical resources.
If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the
future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and
may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the
manner that we know. Fundamental changes
are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about
. . . A great change in our stewardship of the Earth and life on it is required
if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not
to be irretrievably mutilated (UCS 1992).
What has brought the Earth to the brink of environmental
crisis? Paul and Anne Ehrlich summed up
the physical causes in their symbolic equation, I=PAT (Impact = Population x
Affluence x Technology) (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1990). The significance of this equation is that the
human impact on the planet is seen not to be due to burgeoning human population
growth (P) alone, but also to the increasing level of affluence (A) and hence
consumption, particularly in the so-called "developed" nations,
together with the escalation of human technological capacities to modify and
impact on the environment (T). In other
words, human impact on the environment is largely the result of what
collectively might be termed economic
growth. David Suzuki declared that
" . . . the rapid degradation of the planet's life-support mechanisms and
the unsustainable depletion of potentially renewable resources are driven
largely by the workings of the world economy.
Populations are impoverished by transnational corporations without
concern for the long-term survival of local communities and
ecosystems" (Suzuki 1998).
135
It is not only the Greens who have become concerned about
environmental despoliation. From as
early as the 1930s, some Christians have advocated environmental responsibility
from a religious standpoint. Among the
most significant is Lutheran theologian Joseph Sittler, who believed that the
abuse of the environment is effectively an insult to the Creator, and that
caring for the planet is a matter of obedience to God, not just providing for
humanity’s needs (Sittler 1954). Bakken et al. (1995) report his
address to the third Assembly of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in New
Delhi in 1961: “Declaring that a ‘doctrine of redemption is meaningful only
when it swings within the larger orbit of a doctrine of creation,’ and
Christology is irrelevant unless related to our earthiness, including hunger,
war, and the care of the earth, Sittler claimed . . . a theological basis for
an ethic that joined ecology, justice, and peace, and placed it squarely on the
agenda of the ecumenical movement.”
Following Sittler, Baer (1966)
declared, “. . . wantonly to destroy the rational and holistic qualities
of our environment is to sin against the very structure of the world which God
has created.”
1967 was a landmark year in the environmental
discussion. On March 10 of that year, The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,
a controversial and catalytic article by historian and Protestant layman
Lynn White, was published in the respected American journal, Science. In this often misunderstood
article White propounded his thesis that apparently placed the blame for the
world's environmental ills at the feet of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and
its allegedly Bible-based doctrine of Creation.
White claimed that in the medieval era the Bible had been understood to
mean that the natural world was created largely for the purpose of meeting
human needs. Most Christians had
believed that Genesis
136
Stung by White, theologians rushed to reinterpret the
Scriptures so that the “dominion” of Genesis became “stewardship”. By 1979 Rifkin could argue that the term “. .
. ‘dominion’, which Christian theology
has for so long used to justify people’s unrestrained pillage and exploitation
of the natural world, has suddenly and dramatically been reinterpreted [as
stewardship] . . . and one would be hard pressed to find a leading Protestant
scholar . . . who would openly question the new
interpretation . . .” (Rifkin 1979) (emphasis mine).
The 1990s saw the publication of a number of studies in
which social data were examined for possible connections between religious
affiliation or belief and environmental concern (e.g., Eckberg and Blocker,
1989,1996; Kanagy and Willits, 1993; Hornsby-Smith and Procter, 1995; Blombery,
1996; Black, 1997). Generally there have been some suggestions of an
association between religious profession and negative environmental attitudes,
although sometimes the link has been weak and in a couple of instances no link
has been demonstrated at all. The
results obtained by Eckberg and Blocker (1996) provide an example of a study in
which some connection was found: for Americans there was a positive correlation
between biblical literalism and lack of environmental concern. Another American study by Heather Boyd showed
that amongst 'religion variables', "Fundamentalist tradition stood out as
the Christian variable of importance. It
predicted lack of support for environmentalism.
Concern with the 'end times' and evangelizing people for eternal life in
heaven, combined with suspicion of the environmental movement as both a liberal
and a secular movement may lend itself to a lack of concern for the
environment” (Boyd 1999).
137
Australians are perceived to be less religious than North
Americans, but nonetheless there is evidence of a negative religion-environment
connection in
138
From
these studies one might reason that the causes of the lack of practical
environmental concern are much broader than religion. However this is not to say that religion
might not become a powerful factor in generating such concern. In 1970 Francis Schaeffer expressed this
hope: “. . . a truly Biblical Christianity has a real answer to the ecological
crisis . . . it offers the hope here and now of a substantial healing in nature
of some of the results of the Fall . . . It is the biblical view of nature that
gives nature a value in itself . . .
because God made it . . . This is the true Christian mentality . . . What God
has made, I, who am also a creature, must not despise.” Schaeffer further urged that “ . . . the
Church ought to be a ‘pilot plant’ . . . exhibiting . . . through individual
attitudes and the Christian community’s attitude . . . that in this present
life man can exercise dominion over nature without being destructive (Schaeffer
1970).” Moltmann (1985) insisted that
" . . . the relevance of belief
in creation must prove itself in ideas about the present ecological crisis and
in suggested ways of escape from that crisis".
Lynn White argued that the root cause of the environmental
crisis was religious, and that therefore the solution to the environmental
crisis must have a religious dimension.
In this regard, perhaps he was right, but one might ask, did he identify
the right religion? If not Christianity,
then what religion has contributed to the problems, and what religion might
contribute to the solutions? Numerous commentators over the last decade or so
have come to a similar conclusion: that the predominant religion of the world
today is a secular one, and they have variously termed it the religion of
progressivism, the religion of the market, the religion of economics, or
simply, economism. John Cobb, a theologian, regretted that
" . . . in many ways economists have become the 'theologians' of our
world. Because the aim of society, and
of so many individuals within it, is now defined primarily in economic terms,
economists are the ones who guide us and provide the theory that informs their
guidance. Most people, if they look to
Christian theologians at all, do so for quite limited purposes" (Cobb
1999). Cobb characterized economism as
the "assumption that the national good is measured by economic growth . .
. the commitment to increase production and consumption of goods and services,
and the subordination of other concerns to this end " (Cobb 1994:28, 39).
"Even though economism does not dominate the spirituality of all peoples,
it is the 'religion' that governs planetary affairs" (Cobb 1994:27). The concepts of economism are the bases for
decision-making at all levels of government.
Cobb viewed capitalism and socialism as " . . . two sects in a
larger quasi-religious movement based on commitment to economic growth as the
organizing principle of personal and social life and as the basis for dealing
with all important problems of humanity" (ibid.:45) Thus he saw the end of
the cold war and the victory of capitalism over socialism as the unification of
a "false religion". "This
is how the situation appears to those of us who believe that economic growth is
a false god, an idol. The true options
are not two forms of devotion to this false god. They are between worship of this false god
and worship of the true God" (ibid.:46).
"Economics became a science studying how growth could be maximized
and its disruptions minimized. Neoclassical
economics became the theology of those who saw economic growth as the savior of
humankind from destitution, drudgery and misery" (ibid.;49).
139
David Loy, a Buddhist, has been even more scathing:
"Our present economic system should also be understood as our religion,
because it has come to fulfil a religious function for us. The discipline of economics is less a science
than the theology of that religion, and its god, the Market, has become a
vicious circle of ever-increasing production and consumption by pretending to
offer a secular salvation. The collapse
of communism - best understood as a capitalist 'heresy' - makes it more
apparent that the Market is becoming the first truly world religion, binding
all corners of the globe more and more tightly into a worldview and set of
values whose religious role we overlook only because we insist on seeing them
as 'secular'" (Loy 1997). Loy
believed that indoctrination about the importance of acquisition and
consumption is necessary for the market to thrive, evidenced by the enormous
expenditure on manipulative advertising.
" . . . Market capitalism . . . has already become the most
successful religion of all time, winning more converts more quickly than any
previous belief system or value-system in human history . . . the battle lines
become clear. All genuine religions are
natural allies against what amounts to an idolatry that undermines their most
important teachings" (ibid.).
140
Robert Bellah,
in The Broken Covenant, put it this
way: "That happiness is to be attained through limitless material
acquisition is denied by every religion and philosophy known to humankind, but
is preached incessantly by every American television set" (Bellah 1975).
Seventh-day Adventist behavioural scientist Greg Schneider
described the market as "the primary fallen power, the dominant idol, that
determines our existence today." He
expressed the opinion that "Christians who take the Bible seriously should
be able to see through the idolatry of the market", but regretted that
"most Christians do not read their Bibles in a way that unmasks the
idolatry of the market" (Schneider (2001).
Australian economist Clive Hamilton described the obsession
with growth as a fetish, " . . .
that is, an inanimate object worshipped for its apparent magical
powers". In the West " . . .
there is unchallengeable consensus that the overriding objective of government
must be the growth of the economy . . . The answer to almost every problem is
'more economic growth' . . . For decades we have been promised that growth will
unlock possibilities that previous generations could only dream about . . .
But, in the face of the fabulous promises of economic growth, at the beginning
of the 21st century we are confronted by an awful fact. Despite high and sustained levels of economic
growth in the West over a period of 50 years . . . the mass of people are no
more satisfied with their lives now than they were then. If growth is intended to give us better
lives, and there can be no other purpose, it has failed" (
141
Robert Nelson noted that "Many (economists) have
observed that the value system of economics, like most value systems, shares
important qualities with religion. . . . At the heart of the religious side of
economics is a conviction of the powerful value gains of economic growth. Economists might be said to be the
"priesthood" for a secular religion of growth" (Nelson 1995:
143). According to this secular
religion, "The source of evil . . . is poverty, and poverty can be solved
by growth. In finding the solution for
evil, economists are addressing a subject that has also been central to the
history of religion. Economists are, in
effect, expressing a secular faith. This
"economic theology" might be regarded as one belief system within the
larger "religion of progress", as it has been described, that has
characterised much of the thinking of the modern age "(ibid. 143). Nelson
considered virtually all the major systems of economic thought of the past 200
years - Marxism, socialism, capitalism - to be branches of this religion of
progress. " . . . They found no
disagreement that satisfying all real material needs would greatly transform
the world for the better. For them, the
explanation of why people cheat, lie, steal and otherwise behave badly is the
pressure of material deprivation. In
other words, poverty is the original sin, and the road to secular salvation is
economic growth that eventually ends scarcity and banishes evil"
(ibid.144).
Most economists, politicians, business persons and indeed
citizens seem to agree: growth is sacred, and bigger is better. Their collective goal is to ensure that
growth, that is, production and consumption, is always on the increase. Implicit in this goal is the assumption that
economic growth represents true human progress.
At this point it may be instructive to turn to the science
of ecology for some alternative understandings of growth. In the living world, growth is also a
continuous process. But in every living
organism, and in every living community, growth culminates in a state of
maturity in which there is no further collective growth. Every organism and every community has a
growth phase which is followed by a no-growth maturation phase. Every organism grows through its early life
until it reaches physical maturity. Then
growth gives way to maintenance.
Similarly, in a forest, new trees grow to replace old trees that die,
but the total mass of the forest does not increase. There is a biophysical limit to growth. But the forest survives for thousands of
years as a dynamic, sustainable society, recycling its resources and utilising
its wastes.
142
Our economies are largely dependent on biophysical systems, yet we have this notion that economic growth must continue indefinitely at an exponential rate. Some economists even see economic growth as part of the solution to environmental problems. Former World Bank economist Herman Daly was moved to comment, "I believe that we are fundamentally creatures, although special creatures with self-consciousness, mind, and limited creativity . . . as creatures our limited creativity is subject to the restraints imposed by the rest of the created order, namely, finitude, temporality, impossibility of creating or destroying matter/energy, impossibility of perpetual motion, impossibility of speeds faster than light, impossibility of spontaneous creation of living things from non-living things, and so on. Given these biophysical limits of creaturehood, plus the moral limits imposed by our responsibility as Creation's steward, it seems to me ironic in the extreme that we have built our economy on the premise that it must grow for ever, that there are no boundaries imposed by the rest of creation, either from its biophysical structure, or from our ethical responsibility as the 'creature-in-charge'" (Daly 1999:169). David Suzuki, a non-Christian, claimed that “global economics is . . . fatally flawed . . . it assumes that endless growth is possible and necessary and represents progress; it does not value long-term social and ecological sustainability, it rejects caring, co-operation, and sharing as irrational, while promoting selfishness; and it cannot incorporate the reality of spiritual needs. It is breathtaking hubris to force this single, monolithic concept of salvation into every part of the world” (Suzuki 1998).
143
The
ethical stance of economics towards the natural world is essentially one of
anthropocentric utilitarianism. The
components of the biophysical environment are viewed as resources available for
the satisfaction of human needs and wants.
Economics is about finding the most efficient ways to satisfy those
wants from the resources available.
Actions are justifiable on the basis of want satisfaction - producing
the greatest good for the greatest number.
Modern or neoclassical economics embodies the idea of each person acting
individualistically as an economic agent - Homo
economicus, or rational, economic humans - including " . . . all the
anthropocentrism, individualism, materialism and celebration of competition
implied by it" (
The utilitarian ethic also governs the relationships of Homo economicus with other humans, or
rather, "economic agents", who
" . . . are objectified as rational calculating machines devoid of
social value" (
144
Donald Hay, an economist and uniquely Christian among his
The utilitarian ethic of economics commodifies the
biophysical world, human relationships, and religious commitment, seeing only
objects with instrumental value (Hicks 2001).
Education has not escaped.
145
The implications for teaching of economics, geography,
environmental studies and religion become apparent. With Hicks (2001) we may ask, “What goods and
services are necessary for genuine well-being and quality of life? The Christian story should contribute some
good ideas.”
Instead of viewing all created things instrumentally, we
need to consider their intrinsic values.
Max Oelschlaeger, echoing Schaeffer (1970), cited earlier, declared,
"for Christians, nature has intrinsic value because God made it, not
simply instrumental value for human beings. . . . The implications for an
environmental agenda are clear. Nature
must not be treated by Christians as having use-value only: the imperative of
the bottom line is a false god" (Oelschlaeger 1994). At the same time, the view of the biophysical
world as God's creation acts as a curb on the possibility of sliding towards
another secular religion, the religion of environmentalism, in which there is a
tendency to see the value of creation as independent and self-derived. Every creature praises God, declares the
Psalmist, and it is God who sustains them all (145:10,15,16). The despoliation of Creation may be seen as a
desecration of that which God values.
Furthermore, Colossians 1:15-20 implies that all creation has been redeemed by Jesus Christ. Christians look forward not to the
annihilation of creation, but to its consummation (Rodriguez 1994).
Truesdale (1996) amplified the concept of intrinsic
value. In the context of human life, he
cited J. Robert Nelson's view that 'the value of life is never independent or
intrinsically cherishable by itself, for it always remains relative to the
providential care and purposeful will of Yahweh.' Thus Truesdale suggested that value is
bestowed rather than intrinsic. "No
one can disregard another's bestowed value without also disregarding the Divine
giver." By extension, the value of
Creation is also bestowed by the Creator, and should not be disregarded. The value of Creation is essentially relational. The view of nature as having instrumental
value or independent intrinsic value is subordinate to the value bestowed upon
it because it is the Creation of God.
146
The Christian worldview does not see economic growth as the
solution to the evils of human society.
While on the one hand some determinate economic growth is necessary to attain
justice for the more disadvantaged, especially in so-called “undeveloped”
nations, on the other hand overconsumption in the wealthy nations is a major
factor in the despoliation of God’s creation, both in those countries and
beyond their borders. Increasing
material consumption beyond basic needs does not bring happiness, and should
not be an objective for Christians.
Rather, economic activity should be constrained by the understanding of
the natural world as God’s creation.
Many Christians (and others) should examine their lifestyles with a view
to reducing their levels of consumption.
Cobb (1994) argued that since Christians believe that the
earth is God’s and that to degrade it is evil, the structure of our economic
life should aim to meet human needs without further degradation of the planet.
“If we are persons-in-communities rather than individuals-in-markets, the goal
of the economy should be the building up of communities rather than the
expansion of markets.” The implications are radical, requiring “that Christians
help envisage and implement a profoundly different economic order” as an
alternative to the dominant paradigm of economism.”
|
148
·
The kinds and quantity of goods one consumes. Ask questions such as: Is this purchase
really necessary? Where was this product made?
What was the environmental impact of its production? What was the environmental impact of
transporting it from its place of production?
In general, give preference to locally-produced items, especially
food. Eat locally-produced food in
season – one might have to forgo fresh strawberries in mid-winter! Avoid excessively-packaged items.
·
In the home. Be mean
with fuel use. Use solar power where
feasible. Avoid wasteful lighting, and
wear extra clothes in winter instead of boosting the output of the heating
system. Be careful with water use: find
ways to reutilise it before pulling the plug.
Construct or modify your home to make it better adapted to the local
climatic conditions.
·
In the office. Reams
of photocopy paper are used daily.
Errors made in word-processed documents result in printing multiple
drafts before the product is eventually completed. One should ask: What kind of forest materials
went into the production of this paper, and where were they produced? Is this photocopy really necessary?
·
In the schools at all levels. Incorporate environmental components in the
curriculum wherever possible – Geography, Biology, Economics, and Religion are
all relevant. Establish and maintain
recycling programs.
·
In the churches.
Preach and teach a balanced theology of Creation, especially emphasizing
the practical implications of holding a belief that the Earth is God’s
Creation. It might be that many people
might be more concerned about protecting or improving their environment than
about falsifying evolutionary theories.
·
At the ballot-box.
Vote for candidates who advocate and implement policies which reflect an
informed awareness of environmental concerns.
Write to politicians expressing
your concerns and ask them to represent these concerns to government.
·
149
In
the community. Become an environmental
advocate. Don’t sit on the fence and
leave things to others (mostly non-Christians!). Join an environmental organization.
Baer, R.A. Jr (1966)
Land misuse: a theological concern. The Christian Century 83:1240.
Bakken, P.W., Engel,
G. and Engel, J.R. (1995) Ecology,
Justice and the Christian Faith: a Critical Guide to the Literature .Greenwood,
CT: Westport Press.
Becker, G.S. (1976) The Economic Approach to Human Behaviour.
Bellah, R. (1975) The
Broken Covenant, cited by Suzuki (1998).
Black, A.W.
(1997) Religion and environmentally
protective behaviour in
Blombery, ‘T.
(1996) ‘Lord, her watch thy Church is
keeping’ or is she? Religion and the environment. Australian Religious Studies Review 9:1-9.
Boyd, H.H.
(1999) Christianity and the environment
in the American public. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion 38(1):36-44.
Cobb, J. B. Jr
(1994) Sustaining the Common Good: a Christian Perspective on the Global
Economy.
Daly, H.E. (1999) Ecological Economics and the Ecology of
Economics: Essays in Criticism.
Eckberg, D.L. and
Blocker, T.J. (1989) Varieties of
religious involvement and environmental concerns: testing the Lynn White hypothesis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
28:509-517.
150
Eckberg,
D.L. and Blocker, T.J. (1996) Christianity, environmentalism and the
theoretical problem of religion. J. for the Scientific Study of Religion 35:
343-355.
Ehrlich, P.R. and
Ehrlich, A.H. (1990) The Population
Explosion.
Hamilton, C.
(1994) The Mystic Economist.
Fyshwick, ACT,
Hay, D.A (1989) Economics
Today: a Christian Critique.
Hicks, D.A.
(2001) Economic goods. Christian
Century
Hornsby-Smith, M.P.
and Procter, M. (1995) Catholic
identity, religious context and environmental values in western Europe:
evidence from the European values surveys.
Social Compass 42(1):27-34.
John Paul II (ca 1995) Evangelium
Vitae, cited in Nelson (2001).
Kanagy, C.L. and
Willits, F.K. (1993) A ‘greening’ of
religion? Some evidence from a
King, P.G. and
Woodward, D.O. (1999) Liberating Nature: Theology and Economics in
a New Order.
Loy, D. (1997) The
religion of the market. J.
Moltmann, J. (1985) God in Creation: a New Theology of Creation
and the Spirit of God. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Nelson, R.H.
(1995) Sustainability, efficiency, and
God: Economic Values and the sustainability debate. Ann.
Rev. Ecol. & Systematics 26:135-154.
151
Nelson, R.H.
(2001) Economics as Religion: from
Samuelson to
Oelschlaeger, M.
(1994) Caring for Creation: an Ecumenical Approach to the Environmental
Crisis.
Rifkin, J. (1979) The Emerging Order: God in an Age of
Scarcity.
Rodriguez, A.
(1994) Stewardship Roots. Silver Spring, MD:
Gen. Conf. Of Seventh-day Adventists.
Schaeffer, F. (1970) Pollution and the Death of Man: the
Christian View of Ecology.
Schneider, A.G.
(2001) Musings on the market and an old
memory verse. Spectrum 29(2): 32-37.
Sittler, J. (1954) A
theology for the earth. Christian Scholar 37(3):367-374.
Suzuki,
D.T. (1998) Earth Time. St Leonards,
Truesdale,
A. (1996) Preface to bioethics: some
foundations for a Christian approach to bioethics. Perspectives
on Science and Christian Faith 48(4):224-229.
UCS
(1992) World Scientists' Warning to
Humanity.
White,
L. Jr. (1967) The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science 155: 1203- 1207.