Why I am A Christian Environmentalist – Part I

Introductory Remarks

Before I get around to the meat of this short series (I think it will take about 3 parts, 4 at the most, including this one), I want to “lay some ground rules” so-to-speak.

First, I was originally going to title this series “Christians and Environmentalism,” but instead I decided to call it “Why I am a Christian Environmentalist.” The main reason I did this is because I don’t think the Bible answers specifically whether we should be an “environmentalist” or not. Nowhere in the abiding moral law of God does it say “thou shalt recycle.” I feel that naming this series “Christians and Environmentalism” would be taken as an attempt to place a burden on fellow Christians that I do not think the Bible places on them. In terms of ambiguous issues in the Bible, I cannot be your conscience. Therefore, I will use this series in order to explain why I am convicted from Biblical principles [not commands] to practice environmentalism. Quite frankly, the answer to environmentalism is not in the Bible, because that was not an issue during the ancient era, free of cars, factories, and non biodegradable materials (let’s face it, first century folk were much more organic than our local Kroger’s!). It is this issue that reminds me of a marketing campaign a few years back called “What Would Jesus Drive?” Well, I think the answer is easy enough: there were no automobiles in the first century. The question is anachronistic. Someone might reply, “Of course there weren’t in the first century, but what would Jesus drive if He was alive now?” My response would be: The Bible teaches that He is alive now. That’s the whole deal with the resurrection. If you really press me for an answer, the only guess I could even guess would possibly be a white horse (Rev. 19). That’s like asking, according to the Bible, should I wear a blue shirt or a red shirt today? Such is the issue of environmentalism. The Bible does not speak decisively on the issue as a command, so I will try not to either.

At this point, I think it is best to define “environmentalism” in terms of two schools of thought that exist within it. This is extremely important in todays debate, because I think the side who does not consider itself “environmentalist” tends to focus on the minority school, while ignoring the majority school. These schools can be defined in terms of their views of use of natural resources. The first of these schools are “preservationists.” Preservationists tend towards the view that we should use the least amount of resources as possible, even at the expense of human welfare if need be. They hold that all natural ecological areas should be returned as much as is possible to their pristine condition, and, to put it colloquially, left alone almost entirely. The second school is “conservationists.” Conservationists wish to preserve (see how tricky these labels can be?) or sustain the environment, while using what resources we need to use in order to promote our welfare and enjoyment.

I think an example would help. Where a preservationist would generally be against cutting trees down on most/all tracks of land, a conservationist would be ok with tree consumption, as long as it is done in a sustainable manner that would allow for future enjoyment or yields from the land. A conservationist would be against practices of clear-cutting or slash-and-burn techniques, but would be ok with sustainable ways of cutting down lumber. A preservationist on the other hand would be adamantly opposed to most/all types of cutting that aren’t primitive. This does not mean that conservationists don’t want to preserve the pristine nature of tracks of land, of course. They just believe that there is an attainable balance between full preservation of some land with sustainable use of other tracks of land. This paragraph from wikipedia might also be of some help in understanding the differences:

“A key concept is that conservationists generally accept the notion of sustainable yield—that man can harvest some forest or animal products from a natural environment on a regular basis without comprising the long-health of the ecosystem. … Preservationists usually oppose any resource extraction.”

I personally hold to the conservationist ethic of environmentalism. The reasons I hold to this are legion, including the value I find in the aesthetic beauty of God’s creation, and the hope that our children (and their children) can enjoy and participate in the same benefits of creation, if not improved situations, that I do today. Above these and other reasons, however, I am personally convicted by Biblical principles and truths regarding creation (not commands) that point me to the conservationist position. It is these principles that I will spend the rest of the series commenting on.

I hope that these few statements and definitions are enough general information as a background for the following series. That being said, there is no planned time to have the second part up. Certainly, I will wait until midterms are over before attempting to write the second part.