Christianity's Burden of Guilt: AnExaminationofLyn n Whi t e ' s Thesison the EcologicalCrisisinth e Lightof the
Biblical Data
by BryceS.Hodder
A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in par ti alfulfilmentof the re qu ire men t s for thedegree of
Master of Ar t s
Depart mentof Re ligi ou s St udies Me mo r i a l Un iversit yof Newf ou nd l a n d
Au g ust 1995
St.v.::lhn's Ne wfoun dland
.+.
NationalUbrary 01Canada~UiSilionsand Direc~ondes acquisitionsat Blbbographic ServicesBranch desservices bibliographiques
39SWel~lonSlree1 395, rueWelingl0tl g'~Ori"rio ~JAOnteriol
THE AUTHOR HAS GRANTED AN IRREVOCABLENON-EXCLUSIVE LICENCEALLOWINGTHE NATIONAL LmRARY OF CANADA TO REPRODUCE,LOAN, DISTRIBUTEOR SELLCOPIES OFHISIHER THESISBY ANYlviEANS ANDIN ANYFORMOR FORMAT,MAKINGTHIS THESIS AVAILABLETO INTERESTED PERSONS.
TIlE AUTHOR RETAINS OWNERS HIP OF THE COPYRIGHT INlliSJHER THESIS.NEITHERTHE THESISNOR SUBSTANTI AL EXTRACTSFRO M IT MAY BE PRINTEDOR OTHERWISE REPRODUCEDWITHOUT mSfHER PERMISSION.
ISBN 0-612·06 127·2
Canada
L'AUTEURA ACCORDE UNELICENCE IRREVOCABLEET NON EXCLUSIVE PERMETTANTA LABIBLIOTHEQUE NATlONALE DU CANADA DE REPRODUIRE,PRETER, DISTRmUER auVENDREDES COPIESDE SA THESE DE QUELQUE MANIEREET SOUS QUELQUE FORME QUECE SOIT POUR METTREDES EXEMPLAlRES DE CETTETHESE A LADISPOSITION DES PERSONNElNTERESSEES.
L'AUTEURCONSERVELAPROPRlETE DUDROIT D'AUTEIJRQUIPROTEGE SATHESE.N1LATHE SE NIDES EXTRAITS SUBSTANTIELSDE CELLE·
CI NE DOlVENTETRE IMPRIMES OU AUfREMENTREPRODUlTSSANSSON AUTORISATION.
ABSTRACT
The second half of the twentieth century has seen in c r eas e d interest in ecology , inpa rt i c ul a r , inshowing a more caring attitudecowardscreation. Muc hof this interest is the resul t of the survivalins t i n ct and the awarenessof th e interdepende nc y of all forms of life on this planet.
The rehas, however, been an awak eningregardingtheintrinsic wo rt h ofiUJ,.of creaefcn. Humanityis finallycoming to the conc lusionthat the inherent value and right toprotec tionfor al l livi ngthi ng s is vital for the survivalof eachspecies of lif e (plant, animal andhuman).
Therehave been those , LynnWhi t einparticular,whoha v e argue d that our ecologica l prob lems result from Judeo- Chris tianteachings and the rootof the problemcan be traced to the Genesis creati on stories ; thisargument makes the po i nt that Judais m and Christianity the most ant hropocentricof all oftheworld' s religions. The pre s e nt the sis seeksto exa mi ne thisaccusationand throughastudyof va r i o u s scr i ptur a l passage s and Judeo·C hristian te achings thr o ug h theagesshowthatWh i te andothe rs who share the same opinio n have re a c he d inva lid conc l usions. Itwi llbe sho wn tha t the burden of guilt for theec o l ogic a l crieis canno t be place dsolelyonthe shou l de rsof Judaismor Chr ist ianity .
In this exa mina t ion the inte rp retat ion of the Genesis cr e a tion stor ies th r oug h the ages andtheir con nectionto the
curren t ec ological crisis will be of significant in t e r e s t.
various ot h e r Sc r i p tu r e passages, which have been us e d to support what Cameron Wyb r o w refers to as the "ma s t ery .hypothesis," willal s o be examined . As well, I wi l lexamine the importance of JUdeo-Christian teachings dur ing va riou s historicalperi ods.
An examinat i o n of B:!.bl i cal interp ret a t ions andva ri o u s te a c h ings or philosophieson humanity' a placeinthe created order wi l l refu te th e argumentsof LynnWhit e and others. It wi l lals odetermine thatJu d e o- Ch d etian te a c h ing s , properly interpre tedand followed ,portray a creati on made up of many componen ts ,each with in t r i n sic worth.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There have been many from whom I have received support, guidance and encouraqament throughout the writing of this thesis. First and foremost, Iwi s h to thank my supertisor Dr.
David Hawkin. He has guided me through this process with patience and encouragement. His positive criticism, his diligence and his ability to always make me seek a little furtherhave been much appreciated. In the midst of his own busy scheduleheha s given of his time and his knowledge and I am much indebted to him.
There are others from the facultyof the Department of Religious Studies of Memorial Universitywhom I wish to thank as well. To Dr. T.M. Murphy who in i t i a t e d my interestin this program and who has followed my progress with some interest, I offer my sincere thanks. To Dr. M. shat e who worked withme as my supervisor in the beginning stages of my thesis wo r k , and offere dmany helpfUl suggestions, I am indeed indebted. To others who have taught , influenced and challengedme along the way,and herein particular I thinkof Dr. M.Hodder,Dr.S. Mackenzieand Dr. Hans Rollman, I offer sincere gratitude.
Thanks are extendedalso to the Departmentof Educat ion for granting me a semesterleave to continue my studies and to the Integrated Education Council for providing me wit h a
iv
acho Lar ah Lp to help fina nc ia lly in my academic pursuit. In particul ar I wish to thankDr.S. Stryde. executiveofficer for the Integrated Education Co unc il, for his continued int e r e st and enc ouragement.
Alsomy sinceresttha nk s to Marywalsh,secre t ary for the Departr,lE"nt of Re lig i o: ls St u di e s. Mary has assisted in numerousways towa r ds the co:npl et i o n of thiswork. For her patience and help fu l nature I am most apprecia t ive.
I amals ogra te fu l tomycol leagues who enco uraged and helped me dur i ngvariousstages of my the s iswork.
Tomymothe r, who fro m the be ginn i ng spa r ke d my int e r e st in spirit ual and relig ious matters l owe a life t ime of gratitude.
Finally, I wish to tha nk my wife, Marga r et and my child renBrad and Sara for the i r encouragemen t and suppor t . Without their pat ience and understanding the completionof thisthe s i s would ha ve beenmuch more difficult and muchle s s enjoya b l e.
Table of Con tents
ABSTRACT ..•. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCT!ON ..
ii iv
Ch ap te r 1 The "Ma s t e ry"Hypothesis
Mastery an d the EcologicalCrisis: Ly nnWhit e. . . 12 Master y, science,andTe chno l o gy: Foster,Cox,
andJaki ... .•. . . .•.. . ....•... ... 26
Chapter 2 The Bibl ica l Data int.he Light of Wh i t e ' s Hypothes is
Examiningthe Tex t .. • .•..• . .•..•. • •. ... •...• .. .. • . 59 The Traditionof Int e r p r e ta ti o n: Ancient andMe d i e v a l Juda i s m .. ....•. ...•. .. •...• . .• .• . . • . .•. .. . 77 The Trad itionof Interpretation : Early Christi an Persp ect ives •... .•... . .... .•..• . ... . .••• 87 A Mod e r n View:The Renaissa nce , th e Industrial Revolution, an d the Age of Science ... ... ... .• ... . .. . . .•.• . 95 TheImpa ct of Baconianism .. . .•. . . . 103 Chapte r 3
Cha p t e r 4
A Read ingofRecovery•. .•... . Con clus i o n
... 119
Chri stiani ty'sBu rdenof Guil t: A Re appra i s al 141 TheWayForw ard : AReappraisal of OurRelationship WithNature . ... ... . ... ... . ... ... ... . . . .. 150 Con s ideri ng aWid e rCont ext .... ... ..•. .. . .. . . .... 161 Bibliography
vi
All Biblical citations are from the New Revised Standard Version (New York: Oxford Univ<3rsity Press, 1989),
vii
INTRODUCTION
As theecological cris isworsens, the debate suri-cundd nq the original causes continues. Placing b.Lamemay not be a part of the solution.but tracing the historical rootsof the problem is of significance . while there is a lack of agreement among scholars as to the root cause of th e ecological crisis, the Western world and Judeo-Christ.ian teachings have received much of th e blame. Lynn White is among themost; prominent of those scholars who put blame for theeco l o g i cal crisis on the Judea-Christiantradition. Ata meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in196 6 Lynn White delivered an address entitled, "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis." In this address he attempted to showa direct correlation between the ecological crisis and Judeo-Christian teaching.He placed much blamein particular on ;·'I1einterpretation of Genesis1: 28. One of the most controversialstatementscoming out of that address waR,
"especially in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion t.he world ha s seen."I Recognizing thatall forms of life modify their habitat,White argues that
lLynnwh i t e Jr., "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic CrifJis",~155 (March 10,1967), p.1206. See also: LynnWh i teJr . , Ma c hi n aExPep, Essays in the J:2mmdSI11 of Western~(Cambridge: The MIT Preas, 1968);Lynn White Jr,Medieva l Religionand Technglogy (Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress, 1978);
LynnWhi teJr. MedievalTechno]Pa YAnd Socia] Change (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1962).
none do sotothe extent of human beings, especiallyWester n human bei ng s. It is his contentiontha t the Judeo -Christian interpretation of Genesis 1:2 8 has given sc ienc e and te c hn olog ylice nc eto advanceatan unprecedent e drate. Ra t her than impeoing the growt h of science and te chnology, an argu men t put for t h by many per s o ns , Whi te see s the Jude o- Chri st i an trad it i on as enco u r a g i ng the advancemen t of scienc e and technol og y to the detriment of creat ion . It is this tr ad i tion, he as serts, whi c hre move d all tr a c e s of the sacre d inna t ur e initsattemp t to vanquishpag ani sm. Acco r d i ng to White , follo wer s of thi str a d i t ionseeit as the willof God todomina t e and use nature for the ir own desires or needs.
While thismay not have been an et hical atti tud e it did not poseamajor thre a t tocrea t i o n untilthe ninet e e n thcen tury.
It wa s in the ni ne tee nt h century that scien ce and technologycombined in the West e rn world. Whit e maintains tha t although modern sode nce and modern te chnology have inhe r i t ed much from variou s cu ltures , today'B scie n c e and technology are ·dis t i nc t i ve l y OCciden t al . ·aHe also believes that Western leade rs hip in bot hareaspr e-datesthe Scientific Revolut i o nor theInd ust rial Revoluti on . wi t h the combin i ng fo r c e s of scien ce and techno logy, the theoreti cal and the empiricalcouldbeusedtog e t he rtoconque r nature. The early
2White, ·Hi 3 tori cal Roots ·I p.12 0 4.
scientists of the Western world we r e Christian, and their sci e n t if i c invest;;'gdtions into thewo r king s of nature wer-e ca r r i e d out in the name of Christianity. In fa c t.WhiteHays . i t wasnot untilth e lateei g h tee n t h centurythat scientists couldopexa.t;cwithout the premiseof there beinga God.
Wh it e believes thatth e r e has to bea whole rethinkingof humanity'splace in creation an dit s relationship to the rest ofcr e a t i on. This leadsinto the realmofreli g i ou s dogma and itis here, ac co r d i ng toWhite, our hopeli e s . Humanshave to find a new religious ethic or rethink the old one. He suggeststhatSt.Francis of Assisi, with his teachings on the intrinsicwo r t h of::1.11c.reatuzes, may be of some help here.
The Christ ianaxiomthat, -Nat.ure has no re a s o n for existe nce save to serve man,nlmust be counte red wi t h a differentaxiom tha t is more fav oura b l e to natu re. While not suggesting that modernhumanitygo bac k to pagan belief. he do e s argue that the value of creat i on needs to be reconsid ered in th e teachi ngsof the Christianfaithin theWe s t e rnworl d . One thing is certain, more science and technology is no t the solut ionto theec o l o gi ca l pr-obkem,"
While White's hypothesis that many, if net all, of our ecological pr ob lems can be rooted in the Judeo-Christi an
lWhite, p , 1207. 4White,p.12 06.
tradit ion ma y have some merit, many components of his hypothesis are far too sweeping and general. The scope of evidence for his argument is limited and he has chosen to neglect Scripture in context choosing instead to rely primarily on secondary sou rces for his in f o rmat ion. Someof th e examp leshe us e sto defendhishypothesis can also be used to counterhis argument. The s e will be co n s i d e re d as the thesis progresses. Nevertheless ,hi lJmastery hypothesisdoes have a follo wi ng from both th e scientific and religious communi ti e s. For example, David Suzuki, th e Canadian environmen tali st , in his televisio nseries "APl ane t for the Taking ", assumed the same thesis as Wh i t e regarding th e ecolog icalcrisi sand Jude o-Christiantradition. In ea chcase theJudea-Christia ntradition came out tobe the culprit,and, inWh it e' s phrase, "bea r sa huge burdenofguilt."~
Itis thein t e n t i on of thiswork to refute th e hypothesis of LynnWhiteand his followersby challenginghis statement that the Judeo·Christ ian trad ition is to blame for the ecological crisis. In particular, his interpretation of Genesis 1:28 wi ll be chall e n ge d in context ofthe eco l ogical question . Moreover, we will show that ancient and medieva l Jewis h -C h r i s t i a n exegesis of the Bible does not support White'sthesis.
~White , p.1207.
Jeremy Cohen's Be Fertile and Incr e a se Fill the rarth and Master It'shows that there is no evidenceto support the argument that pre-modernJewsor Christiansever used Genesis 1 :28 as a licence to exploit the envfrorurer,c. He proposes that the exploitation of nature is the result of modern avarice andirr es pons i bil ity . ' For Cohen, humanity, with its unique positionin creation,is to some degree in partnership with God in the ongoing work of creation.
The roots of the ecological crisis are not nearly as simple as White avers. We intend to show this hy examining the work of Michael Foster, Harvey Cox and StanleyJaki. All three of these wr! tershave some of the same suppositions as White, especially the idea that Christianity has given humans
"dominion" over the earth, but they put the discussion of the issues in a much wider context.
To begin this part of our study the thesis of Michael Foster will be examined. Writing earlier than White, he addressed some of the same questions but in a much broader context. Although White's article focuses on many issues as they relate to our topic there is one important issue that he appears to have overlooked. He never really addresses the question of what is the roleof science and technology in the
liJ e r emy Cohen, Be Fertile and Increase fiJI the Earth and
~ (New York: Cornell University Press, 1989).
'Cohen, p , 16.
ecological cri si s. Whi le he says that more science and technologyis not the answe r.he does not sa y what theirrole oughtto be. This discussionneeds tobepursuedand oneof the best exempla rs who has gi v en this question serious consid e r ationis Fo sterwho agree s wi thWh ite'spremisethat as longas natu rehad asa c r e del e men t ne ithera the ology nor a science of nat urecou l dde v e l o p. There had to havebe ena distinction betw e en the natu r al and the divin e realm fo r western civilizat ion to ha ve developed the way it did.
Foster, howeve r,blamesthe ecological crisison the gr o wt h of natural science and the cha nge inatt i tu de on the pa r t of humans regardi ng na t u r e. Inthe pa s t, peoplewere guide d by nat urebu tno wi t is something ove r whichtohave do minio n.
1'hatwhic hthe Ancientswor shi pped, the Moder ns approach as an objec t tobemaste re d.'This has cr e a te d a serious problem.
Humanity is now in a positio n of gre at po wer and needs guidance asnever bef ore. Howeve r, natu r e 's guid a n ce is no long erprese n tand humanit y acute l y feels thisloss. Fo ster main t a ins tha t th e sol uti onmaybe foundinthe samenat u ra l science as he has blamed for the pro blem. Modern natura l scienceis the agency bywh i c h hu man itywill come to see its
'Mi c ha el Foster, "Some Rema rksOnThe RelationsOf Science And Rel ig io n".ThgChr i s t i an News-l ethor (Suppleme nt ) 299
(Noyember26 1947) pp.S - 16. Seeal s o CameronWybr ow, Cr e ati o n Nature And PoliticalQrder In Th e Ph ilosophyQf Michael Foste r 11903- 1 9 5 9 1 (NewYork:The Edw i nMelle n Press, 19 92) .
dependency on God. In fact he sees a kinship between Christianity and science. He believes that humanin t e ll i g e n c e can solve all the apparent mysteries of nature.' It is as members of the body of Christ that this control over nature must be exercised. Anyintegration that is to take place shouldnot bewi t h nature,but with the body of Christ. This will be dealt with in more detail later.
Cox, like White, believes that Christianityset humanity over against nature. A perception of human i t y as having a right to dominion is a correct interpretation for Genesis 1:28. He supports the mastery hypothesis and does not allow for the notion of kinship betweenhumanity and nature. In agreement with Foster, he too argues that humansmust exercise control over nature and neither the human being nor God can be defined in terms of their relationship to nature.le This supports his argument for a transcendent God and a humanity that is totally separated from the rest of creation.
'Mi .::h a e l scecer-, "Greek and Christian Ideas of Nature", in Creation Nature And Pol1t198lQrder In The Philosophy Qf Michgel Foster (19Q3-1959), ed . Cameron Wybrow lLewieton:
The Edwin Mellen Press, 19 92 ) ,p, 175. Originally published inTh e Christian Scholar, XLI, September1958, pp, 361-366.
"aarvey Cox, TheSoi!cuJar City (New York:The Macmillan Company, 196B) , p.21. See Also: HarveyCox, ~
~(Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 19691; Harvey Cox, Just As I Am (Nashville:Abingdon Press, 19B3); Harvey Cox, OnNot LeayingIt To The Snake (London: SCM Press, 1968);Harvey Cox, B'iJ,igion In The Secular City (New York:
Simon And Schuster, Inc., 1984).
However, in contrast to Whi te, Cox's focus is on the posi tive side of humani ty'sdomin i o n over creationandon the positive advance ments of science and techn ol ogywhi c h have res u l t e d frcm that dominance. It is interesting to not e though tha t Cox would argue that the dominion given to humanityovernature isno t tobeexploitath·e. Godcreated the worl d and cares for it and people are to demonstra te a responsi b le at titude towards all of the cre ated order.
Howe v er , according to Cox, it is through his t o r y tha t God works and not thr o ug h natu re.
Athird issue that needs somedi scussion is the whole question of what do we do in the face of te c hno l ogic al edvencee eneewhichseemtobe harmingtheenv i r onme n t. This is a questi onwhichwe will come bac k to in the concl uding cha p t e r . Whit edoes not give a realis t i csolution to this pr o ble m. His sugg e s tio nthatwemake St. Fr an ci s patron sai nt for ecologist s is hardl y a soz.. ti o n that will solve ou r ecological problemsas we advance towards the twenty-first centu ry. While'gettingbacktonature' ma y have its merits, it isno t re all y a feasiblewa y of life for all pe o p l e in the la tterpart of the twen t i ethcentury , nor wi ll it adequ ate l y provid e solutions. Sta nle y L. Jak i argu es tha t Whit e ' s sug ge st i on is not eve n true to ou r Christi an ca l l ing. He bel ievesthat intrinsicto Chr ist ianity.i.s science. For him, scienceis good and it isGod'swil l thatit pr og ress.
In his study Jaki co n c lu des that for th e Hebrewsthere wa s nodeification ofnature. Ex terna l nature wa sev Ldence of a tra ns c e nd e n t God whopu t the entireuniverse here as a dwelling place for huma nity.11 He supports this view by reference to th e second and earlie r account; of exeatIon as foundin Genesis. There he sees the emphasison humans and not on nature. In agreementwithWh i t e , Cox and sceeer , Jaki maintai ns that the ea rHeet; Bi b lical story of creation does no t al low for a beliefinthe intrinsic wor th of nature. He too believes that humani tyhaslo s t it s senseof direction.
Th e result ofth i s is that sciencehas beenallowe d toru n out of control. A dangerhe r e is that science cannotbe looked to for norms and goals. It is to the peopleof scienceth at: we mustlook for the13e. Hear g ue s that if Biblical or Christian sourcescan be blamed for so manyof the ecologicalproblems th e n these same sources must be givencredit fo r thecreatio n of science and tech nology. In response to those whowou l d say tha t scienceandscientists have rejectedChristianthe i sm and its teaching of moral ity, Jaki would argue that it is
11Stanl eyL. Jaki, Science AndCreation (NewYork:Science History Publications, 1974), p.13 9. See alsoStanleyL.
Jaki, The Absol uteBeneathThe Rela t ive (Landham:University Pressof America, 1988), Stanley L. Jaki, ChanceorRe al.1.t.:c:
And Other Essays (La nha m: Universi tyPress of Americ a, 198 6 ) ; StanleyJ••Ja k i ,The OriginOf Scie nceAnd The Scie nceOf Its Or i gin (South Bend:R':!;gnery/Gateway, rnc,, 1978) ; StanleyL.Jaki,The Ro a dof Science AndTheWaysTo.
~(Ch i c a g o : TheUniversity of Chicago Press, 19781.
10 therefore senseless to bJa me the ecological crisis Christianity. He therefo re departs here fromWhi t e ' s basic premise. He doesnot, however, Le a vethear gume ntthere. He betie v e s that sciencedoes have anethica l di mens i o n , and much ofwha t Lebeing dane in science is in ke epingwi th th e wi l l of God. In that sense science ca n be seenas leadingto the ways of God. Thi s results ina connection betweenscienceand ethics.U
Afterexamining the three views introduced above we will examine how variousScriptu repasBageshave been interpre ted downthroughtheagesin the Judea-Ch ristiantradition. In so doing, I wil l gi ve special consideration to the impac t of Baconianism. Much of our focuswillbe onGenesis 1:28 in an attempt: toplace it init s literaryandhistorical context.
The t.er-ma"subdue" and "do minion"as usedin Genesis1:;8will have to be examined and consideration given to the impli c a t i on s. Thisprocesswil l helpdetermine whet heror not Lyn n Whit e ' s hypothesisis valid. I twillalso helpdetermi ne the humanbeing'srole or place in creat ionas i t is presented in the context of Scripture. Through thi s study it is proposedthatananswer canbe foundtoth e qu e s tio n : Does Christ.ianitybeara burdenof gui ltfor the ecological crisis?
The conclusion to this question wil l be inst rumenta l in UStanleyL. Ja k i, The Road Of Science And TheWays ToGod (Chicago:The universi tyof ChicagoPress, 1978)p. 30 7.
11 helping develop a Bound ethi cal Christian response to the ecokc-jdcaLproblem in an age of science andtechnology. The thesiswi l l be thatta ken in context, Genes is 1:28 does not support themastery hypothesis, Thus throughour stu dy we hopeto contributeto scholarship by addilillnewdimensions to the debate ini tia tedby LynnWhite . Muchof the debate has not thoroughly examined th e Biblical text. Through a concentratedanalys isof the Bib l ical text it will be shown tha tthe issue surroundingtheeco l o g i ca l crisisand it sroots is more complex than White portrays. There are several interrelated issues, as has already beenin dica t e d , which requirediscussion . Only byca r e fu ll y differentiating the is s ue s and seeinghowthey relate to each other willwe be able to arrive at a sound judgement on the role of Christiani tyand theec ol ogi c a l cris is.
CHAPTER1
The"Ma.s t ery" Hypothesis Masteryandthe Ec o l ogi c al crisis: Lynn Whi te
The phrase "mastery hypothesis" was coinedby Cameron Wy br o w in ref e r e nc e to the arg ument put fort h by those who said that na t ur e is inanimate and was createdtobe control led by humans. Amongst the "ma s t e r y wz-Lt.e zav, some of whom are Harvey Cox, Stanley Jaki , Michae l Foster and Lynn Whi te , opinions differ regarding the positiveand negative effects of this mastery hypothesis. The diverge ntvf eweresult from the differing positions ta ke n by particular scholars. If the scholarfocuseson the advanccnent.s in science and technology andtheir subsequent; benefits for humankindthen the mastery of creationis a goodthi ng. If , however, the echctee focuses on thesesame advances andviews the m as threats to creation asa resu l t of environmental damageor nuclear threats then the positionis quite different. One commonality of these schola rs,regardlessofwh i c h sideofthe argument they take, is theagreementtha t Judeo..Chr i st i a n teachings have playe d a role in humani ty'schangedattitudetowards creation. It is Lynnwhit e' s contentionthat the root of theecologica l crisis can be traced to Judea-Chris t ian te a chings. He argues tha t before thesereligioustrad i tionshuman itylivedina closer re lations h ip with nat ureanddi d notseeits e l f inadominant role. In fa c t for a long pe riod crea tion wasreve r e d and at
13 time s wo rs hi pp ed . With theeme rg e n c e of Judai sm, andlater Christianity, humanity's percept i on of eceaeIceand its pla ce in it changed dra matically. Ac c o rding to White th e se tradition s taught humanity to take contr ol and use all of creationfor its own ben e fit wi t ho ut any rea l regardfo r the well-be i ngof there s tof creation . Jew sandChrist ianscoul d find support for thisposition in Scriptur e , partic u l a rl yin Genes i s 1:28. Theresulthasbe enan ecologicalcri sis,whic h Whiteargue s , has itsrootsin Judea-Chri s t ian tea c h i ngs.
White' s "TheHi storicalRoo t sOfOu r Eco logic Cri s is"has been the startIng poi nt fo r muc h of the discussi on about Chri s ti anit y'8 ro l e in crea ting the ecologi c a l cri s'.". He re cognizes that as fa rbac kasahumanpopul ac e ca nbetrac ed, environments in whic hpeop l e lived ha ve been chan ged to suit their needs fo r su rv i va l and comfort. Human ar e constantly ch3ng i ng their ha bitat. As civil iz a tion progressedand as humanneeds changed,sometime sunint e nt ionallyinthe proc e s s, their naturalsur roundings werealsocha ng ed. Inother cases the change s we re very intenti onal and impl emented for the advancement or comfort of humanki nd. Theexac t reas on s for th e changes cannot always be tracedandthe exac t effec t s of some of the cha nges·cannot alwa ys be re e eerc ced, White writes:
People, then, havealwaysbee n a dynamiceleme ntin theirownenvironment, but inth epres e nt sta teof histo:-ical scholar.ship we uSL'ally do net; know
14 exactly whe n, where, or with wha t ef fect s man - induced changes came.1 ]
I tis this lir:e of thinki ng in Whi te' sargumentwh i c h needsto be pursued . On the one hand he argues th at humanity has always attemptedto control and manipulate the envi r onment , whil e onthe ot h e r hand he wishesto pre senttheargumen t th a t such manipula tionandco ntrolisthe resu:!.tofJude a-Chr i s t i a n te ac hi n g. R.V.Young Jr.ma ke s reference tothis weaknessin Whl te'sargumen t. He writes:
Lynn White, apparen t lywit hout noticin gthe fatal co n s e qu e n c e s for hisown argument,points out that
"for six millenniaat least, the banks ofthe lower Nile have been a huma n artifact rat he r than the swampy Africanjungle whichnature ,apart from man would have made it." Now during the last six thou s a n d years Egypt hasbeen avirtual carnival of va riou s religions, but for long stretc hes the ancient Egyp t i an s lit e r a lly worshipped the Nile. And yet is a more drastic 'o: r a n s fo rma t i on of the env iron me n t (co a s t al wetlands at tha tJ) ccncedvable?14
Young goes on to make reference to thefa c t that the pagan Ro mansaredo c umentedas having had destructiveagricultural methods. He alsomakes re f e r e nc e to Ja pa n where inthela s t hundredyears te c hno l og y and industrialism have progressed obv i ously withoutsignifi cantJudeo-Christianinfluence. Thi s oriental country has ne v e r beenco n s i de r e d Chri s tia n and in
I lWhite, p. 12 03 .
HR.V.Young Jr. "Christianityand Ecol ogy" Na tio na l Review Dec. 20 , 1974,p.1456 .
15 fact heldto itstra d i t i o na l re l.igiou s bel iefs we ll intothis century. Th e corre lat io nbetweenscientificadv ancement and Ch ristianitycannot be supportedi f oneusestheseby wa yof examples. It also wea ke ns the arg ument that i t is to the Orient that one ought to louk for a pr o pe r approach to neeure;" Thi s weakness in Whi t e ' s argum ent cannot be overlooked. Eve nifJudea-Chris tian te ac hi ng has to take scene of theblame fo r theecological crisistoda y,i t cannot take the total blame for the originof th e crisisnor can it be portrayed as the sale culprit for the present ecologica l dilemma. Thatdoes not negate the urgencyof the problem,nor doesi tto t a l l y take away theblame from Christiani ty,butit doespr esentaweakn e s s in White'sargument.
Abri e f his t o r i c a l overviewofhu mani ty and itsimp a c t on the rest of crea t i o nwi l l help put the problemin a better perspective.For genera t i o ns the changes th a t humans caused to the cr e ati o n did not drasticallyaffect the environmentbu t with the 'marriage ' of science and te c hnology in the ninete enth centu r y there wa s unleashed a power through human i t y's knowl edg e and inventive ness that threatened al l existence. The resulthas lead toan ecologicaldisaster hat accor dingto White, ~l,,jitheratavis m nor pret t ification" wi l l
15Young,p. 145 6.
16 er-a sa.."
In the nineteenthcentury , class dist inctions in the We s t e r n world beganbr e ak i n g downand this hadanimpact on al l realms of human life, as we l l as on science and technology. White ma intainsthat asthe Westernworldbecame more egalitarianthis allowedfor theunionof technologyand ectence . Prior to the nin e t e e nt h century technology wa s equatedwi ththe low er , more uneducated classes, whilescience wa s aristocra ticand intel lectual. As class barriers broke down so too did the cl e ar separation of science and te c h no l ogy. This allowedfor incredibleand ra p i d advancement in areasofscience, inclustry, and qual i tyof lifein general.
The theoreticaland the empirica l couldnowcombine and this wo u l d make for unp recedented scientific and technolog ica l progress. rheee rapidadv a nc emen t s occurred in t.heWestern worl d:the world of Christianity. Whiteevengoes so far as to say that to this day significant science is sti ll Occidenta l instyle andmethod.l1Thismaybe true but again the question mustbe raised as towhe t h e r or not the-reis a correlation be t wee n this progress and the -ma rria ge" of science and techno logy and the te a chings of the Judeo- Christian faith. It seems most unus ua l thatWhi t e makes no
UWhite , p. 12 0 4 . 17White , p,1204 .
17 ref e re n c e to the fact that this "ma r r i a ge" and rapid advancement didnot occur to anysignificant degree untilmany centurieslater. Yo ungmak e s thisvery point whe n respondi ng toAr noldJ. Toynbec'6 position:
Even Professor Toynbeeseems at leas t vaguelyaware of a crucial flaw inhi s ar gume n t . As he points out:"Theapplicationof sciencetotechnologyand the consequent outbreak of the industrial Revolution la g g ed abou t 26 centuries behind the probable date of the compilationof the Book of Genesis."u
Onewou l d appearto begr a s p i ng for straws intr y i ng to show a st r on g direct correlation be t we e n two factors that are separatedbyatle a s t twenty-sixhundredyears. RichardHi e r s notes some th ingof the same we a kn e s s in the argument. He writes:
Wh i t e ' 8 thesis is that Is r a e l i te (or Jewish) and later Chr i st ian wa ysof80 relati ng werepec uli a r l y exp loitiveand arrogant. (Intere stingly, although Wh iteobserve s th at 't h e mon s t e r mammals' of the Pleistocene peri o d may havebeen exterminated in consequenceof man'shunting techniqu es, he does no t menti on that this devel o pment necessarily antedated any possible pernicious Is r a el it e or Ch ristianinf luencebyseveral mi llenn i a.)19
Fromthese historical references it is evidentthatsomething ofan aggressive att i t u de towardsna t ure oc c ur r e d longbe f o r e eit h e r Judaism orChr i st i a ni tyarr ived on the scene. Human ity
IIYou ng, p.1457.
URicha r dH.Hie r s, "Ecology , Bi b lical Theology , and Method ology: Biblical Perspe ctive sOnThe Env i r o nme n t, "
zY9.Qn,vol. 19 , no.1 (March 1984 ),51.
18 demonstratinga domina ntat ti tudeand behaviour towards nature ap pea r s to hav e been a par t of various cultures from time immemorial.
This Leadsto a second acknowledgement wh i c h must be made in this discussion. The role of the western wo r l d in the advancemen tof scienceand technologyisimpo r t a n t sincei tis in the we s te r n wo r l d th a t the Judea-Christ ian traditions or i g i n a ted. According toWhi t e, lea dership by the We s t in areasof scienceandtechnologycanbe tr a c e d back bef orethe sc i ent i f i c or the Ind u s tr i al Re v olut i on s. He gi ves severa l examples to support his argument, i.e., as ear l y as1000 A.D. theWe s t was using wa t e r power in industry.20 Hewis h e s to use these examples to strengthen his argument th~ t Judeo- Christian te a c h i ngs cau s ed human i ty to change its attitude re ga r d ing its relat ionshipwith the rest of creat ion . One ar ea he focuseson for thispart of hisargume ntis regarding changes infarming methodsan dtheir correlationtore l i g i ou s beliefs. He traces we s t e r n at t i t ud e s towards nature to changes in farmi ng methods because through th e ages every culture has been dependent on agriculture and he maintains that this says somethi ng about their religious be li e fs. Ag ricu l tu ra l methods thatwere used in the NearEa s t and the Medit err a n e a n changed as civ i l i2:a tion move d into Nort he r n
aOWhite, p . 1204 .
19 Europe. Amore aggressive type of farmingwa s developedin Northern Europe. Up to thispoint, the writer has no argument with White's assertions. The argument is wit hhis trying to someho w relate these changes to the people's religious belie fs. In NorthernEu r op e the climatewas we t an d the 60i1 heavier. Here, for successful farming, th e soil had to be turned .not merelyscratche d. Moreoxen were requiredto do th e work and a formof commune farm i n g wa s begun. The importa nt re s u l t is that there was , out of necessity for survival.a much more agg ressiveattitude developingtowards the soi l. People now became the aggressors and withthis agg r e s s i o n the re de ve l op e d a change inattitudetowards the earth. White places great emphasis on this change in attitude and itslong - t e r m effect s. Hewr i t e s:
Man'srela t i on tothesoil wa s profound lychanged.
Formerly manhad been part of nature; now he was theexp l o i t e r of nature. No whereelseinthe wo r ld di d farmers develop any ana l og ou s agricu ltura l implement. Is it coincid e nc e that modern technology, with its ru thle s sn e s s towa rd ne cu r e , has so la r ge l y been produced by descendants of these peasants of NorthernEurope?~1
White does not thi nkso andhe putsforth the argument that pe op le ' s atti tuderegardingthei recologyis determinedby how the y see themselves in relation to the environment ar ou nd the m. While one might agre etha t it is not coincidence tha t moderntechnology ha s been la r gely produc ed by descendants of
~lWhi te, p , 12 0 5 .
20 NorthernEurop~' '''ll peasants, that does not necessarily that one agrees that this advancement in te c h no l o gy has anything t.o do with religious teachings or beliefs. Whit e , howe ver , presentsthevi e w that it does tie inwith reli g ious belie f s,especiallywithJude a -Chri stianbelief s. Hewrites,
"human ec o logy is de e p l y cond i tioned by beliefs about ou r nat u r e and dest iny- -that is, by reli gion.,,22 Here, for White, is thecrux of th ema tte r. However, there apperrrsto be a fundamenta l flaw inWhi te' s argume nthe re as well. He ove r look s the survi va l ins ti nct of humani ty and obvio usly withou t. re al izing it, ov e r l oo k s hi s earlier state me n t s regarding how huma n i t y has always cha nge d its habita t to sur vi ve or progress. Thepl o ug h i ng of the aoil, rat h e r than the scratchingofth esu r f a c e, appears to have been theresul t of ne c ess ity. Fa r mi ng in this cl ima t e required a different approach th an that of the gentler Mediterranean cl i ma t e . There is really no evidencethat this was related tore ligi o u s tradi tionor beliefs.
Whi teargues that rega.rdlessof howmuch modern persons may appear to be secular and appear tobe making decisions that have no apparent religious connections, people of the Wes tern world ,andin many ot he r partsof theworld,are sti l l influenced by Chri s t i a n axioms. It is in thisregard that
32White, p.1205.
21 Whiteinquires into the Christian teaching on humanity and its place in creation . He emphatically places the blame for the ecological crisis where he believes it belongs, in the audeo- Christian teecbtnce. Whi tewrites,"e s pe c i a lly in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has eeenv;"
White argues that according to Judea-Christian teaching humanity is above the restof creation,i tis the reason for creation, and there is a dualism between humanity andthere s t of nature. He argues as well that i t is a fundamental Christian teaching that humanscontrol and exploit nature for their own be ne fi t .24 with the demise of paganism from the people's faitl' the elements of naturewh i c h had been viewed as sacred, and in some cases divine, were removed. Wh i l e nature may be seen as the work of God, it was in no way to be seen as sharing intha t di v i n i t y. The belief developed that i t was given to humanity by God to be used as wa s seen necessary forthe improvement of human lif e . Ifthat were at the expenseof other partsof naturethen that was really only of secondaryconcern, if that.
Wh i t e alsobelievesth a t originally nature was studied as a meanswhe r e by people couldbetter understand the nature of
alWhite, p , 12 0 5. 2~White, p. 12 0 6.
22 God, sinceGod was reve ale d throughthe elements of nature. As time wen t on, howe ver. it bec amea searchto tryand fi nd how the mi nd of God works throug h the oper a tions of the univ ers e. Up to and inclu d i ng the firs t half of th e eig h t een t h century nat ure was alwa ys studi e d with the acknowle dg e men t ofa sup e rior Be ing. However . beginni ng in the la t t e r par t of th e ei g hte en th century , ma ny scient i st s re j e ctedanybel ief in a Su periorGod and theirapproachto nature changed with thi s cha nge in belieLzs Bec au s e for several cen turi es sc ienc e developed and ha d it s roo t s in cul t u r es of We s t e r n Christ i an i ty,White is of the opi n i o n tha t thi s same Christiani t y mu st be held ac c ountable fo r the eco logi c al cris isbeing fa cedtod a y.He writ es:
But as we nowre c ogn ize , somewhat over a cen tury ago science andtechno logy ,hither toquite separa t e ac tiv i ti e s, joined to givemankindflowers which to judgebymany of theecologic effec ts, ar e out of control. If so, Chri s tiani tybears a hug e burden of guilt .11
The re is nodo ubtthe n asto where White placesthe bla me for the ecological crisi s. Placing the guilt is one thing , whUe off e ri ng avia ble solut ion toth e pr obl emisquite anot he r . White's guiltyve r d i c t for Chri s tianit y will be ex a mi n e d as thethesisprogre s s es.Aclos e r examinati r.Jn ofJude a-Christ ian scriptu r eis requiredandan accuratereview of the teachings
UWh ite, p,1206. 21Whit e, p . 120 7.
23 of the early and medieval church will need to be completed in order to demcnecxece that White'saccusation is either valid or invalid.
Whether or not one agrees with his guilty verdict for Christianity, one cannot deny the fact that there is an ecologicalcrisis which requires some viable solutions. White does not conclude with his accusations regarding Judeo- Christian teachings. He does offer some solutions. I t13 these suggested solutions to the ecological problem which requires some attention at this poin\:. To begin, he does not see science and technology as being a viable solution. The problem here, he argues, is that our science and technology have come out of Christian attitudes, and in spite of themselves, people cannot seem to ch ..nge these attitudes towards nature. It is a very anthropocentric attitude. As long as humanity thinks this way, White feels it is not possible for the rest of creation to be viewed from the proper perspective. Nor does he see the religions of the East as a viable option for the West. Western people, for the most part, cannot really be expected to fully accept Eastern beliefs and even i fthey did these religions are steeped in their own history. To simply change from one tradition to another would not necessarily bring about the desired results.
Although he has accused Christianity as being at the root of the ecological problem, he does not totally abandon it. It
24 appears, however, that he looks within the tradition only because nothing better has come along to replace it. More will be said on this shortly. HoweverIwhatWh i t e suggests as a pos s.LbLe solution to the present problem is certainly questionable from a practicalpoint of view. He suggests that modern humanity should reconsider the life and teachings of St. Francis of Assis! and make him the patron saint for ecologists.21 He suggests this because of Assisi' s teachings regarding all of creation. In these teachings can be found the idea of an equalityof all creatures on earth. The human being does not seem to be at the centre, but a part of all that is. While one does not deny that St. Francis taught a great respect for all of creation, the troublesome thing about White's proposal that he be made patron saint for ecologists is that White overlooks so many past and modern day Christians who have also shown praise for the environment. Young notes this when he writes:
What is, therefore, most preposterous in the argument set forth by the historians White and Toynbeeis their utter disregard for history. Both of them try to pass off men like Roger Bacon, Galileo, Newton, and Bishop Sprat as 'typical' expositors of the Christian view of nature, while St. Francis of Assisi, a canonized saint, is described as some sort of fluke.21
He goes on tomake reference to such people as St. Thomas 21White,p,1207.
28Young, p , 1458.
25 Aquinas, GeorgeHerbert, Gerard ManleyHopkins, T.8. Eliot, e.s.Lewisand J.R.R.Talkien. Eachof these Christianpeople made witnes s to the beauty and valueof creatio n , yet Wh i t e cho os e s to ma ke reference only to St. Francis of Aei asi leaving the impression th a t , even if unintentio na lly, one is ha r d pressed tofind othe r examplesof well-knownChristians to demonstrate an attitude towards
aggress ive or destructive .
that is not
White is fully aware that th e majority of people in modern secular cu l tur e wou l d ar g ue tha t theydono t develo p their at t i t ude s towa r d s cre a t i o n as a resul t of Chr i sti a n te a c h i n g s. This matters l i tt le fo r him. He bel ieves that untila new setof values replaces tho s eof Christianity the crisis can on l y worsen. As long as people have an anthropoce ntricview of themselves,which ofcour s e results in a negationof the intrinsicvalueof therestof nature, t.nere is ve ry little hope fo r impr ovement in the ecologic a l crisis,2~ It is in the area of rt:.}igi on that thesol ut i on mustbe found, since accordingto Whiteit is here the causes of the problem can be found. He writes:
Since the roots of our troub le are so la r ge l y re l i gio us , the remedy must also be essentially religious , whetherweca l l it that or not. We must
=ethink and refeel our nature and de stiny ,lO
2~White, p.12 0 7 lOWhi t e . p.12 0 7.
"
This is a swe epingstatementand whilethe r e is l ittledoubt that ebe xe is a ne e d to 'rethink and refeel our natu re', Whi te ' s conclusi on that th e "root s of our troubles are so la r g ely religious "must be qu e s t i o n ed. Wh i t e appears tobe very select ive in choosing support for his argument wh ile overlookingconside rationsthatwouldrefute his position. As ahis t o ri a n , heis either lacking some important knowledgeor he has chosento neglect someimportant points. S evera 1 areas of weakne s s in White's hypothes is ha v e al ready been examinedbutone tha t needs a detailed ex a mi nationwillbe his usage of Scripture tosupport his argu me nt . The scripture passa geonwh i c h he reliesmosthea v i l y isGe ne s i s 1:26. This passage, alongwithot he rsignificantones,willbe r-cneddere d in Cha p t e r 2 of this wo r k . It is there that it will be demons tra t e dthat, in additionto White'sother wea kne s s e s in hisargume nt ,hi s argumentonBiblicalgro undsis also wi t ho ut suffic ient foundat ion.
Mastery , Science, and Technology: Foster, Cox, andJaki
On t.he par t of many people the r e has deve l op e d a det r imenta l approach tocreation and Whi t e 's accusati onsma y not be tota lly wi t hout support. However,muc h ofthe basisof hisargume nt doe sla ck supp ort . In fact , unders t oodproperly the Judea-Ch ristia ntr ad i t ion may hold the answers to the
solutions for the ecological crisis.
27 These solutions, however , wi l l not be found in isolation from science and technology. Humanity ca nno t revert to an ageof innocence or ignoranceinthe s e areas. Therefr:lre, scienceand technology must be held accountable for its actions. Moder n day Christians have an obligation to teach and live in such away tha t the values taught byChristianity, wh i c hfo r- some have beenlos t in interpretationofScripture, are regained. There ar evari o u s views astoho w thiscan best be done. Mi ch a e l Foster is one such person who has mada some suggestions in thisar e a.
WhileWhite'sartic le focuses on many issues rel a t e d to the ecological crisis, there is one important is s ue thathe appears to have overlooked. He never real lyaddresses the questionof what is the roleof science and technologyin the ecologica l crisis. Not only does he not see thesetwo areas of dcve Lc p ment; as off eringthe solutionsto the problem. he doesnot explainwhat he sees asbe i ng thei r role. To propose that theycannotbe loo ke d to for the solutionsmi g ht be a logical argument, but one cannotdenythe fact that science andtechnologyareverymucha partof modern da yliving and aa st a ted ab ov e it is impossible to go back toa lifestyle chat; isnot depende n t onthe s e areasofdevelopmen t. Inde ed.
most likely it is not even desirable. The r e f o r e , in any serious considerationof the ecologicalcrisisit wo uld seem
2.
thatth e roleof science and technology must be ta ke n into account, and Foster is one of the best exemplars of their role.
A good place to begjnthedeliberations on Foster is with a statementhe made in the"Supp l eme n t to the Christian News- Letter" in1.94 7 :
... we have gained enormously in power to control nature, but notin the knowledge whichwouldenable us touse that power- rightly.31
For Foetor. havi ngthe power to controlna t ur e is a good thing and i t 18 what God intended for humanity. The power to contro l is not the problem; itis how this power is us e d . In common with other mastery writers. he uses the Genesis creation stories and Psalm B to support his theory tha t dominionover nature and invest igations into all realms of nature is a part of the planof God for human being s . He argues:
The attitude of man to nature, characteristic of modernsc i e nc e and characteristically un-ereek, ha s a Biblical source. In Genesis 1: 28 man Le co mma nde d "replenish the earth andsubd ue it." In Psalm 8the psalmistsaysdTho u madest him [ma n ] to
~:~~ ~~:i:li;,nth~:;~~~~e:o:rssf~;t :~X hands, tho u
"r'ceuer, "Some Remarkson the Relations of Science and Religion ", in Creation Nature And PolitiGj! l Order In the Philosophyof Michael Foster (1903-1959) , ed,Cameron wybrow (Lampeter: The Edwin MellenPrese, 1992), p.149.
J~Foster.«creek And Christian Ideas Of Nature", p,174.
29 Ifone wereto relyonly on theseBiblicalpassages,as Foste r does, thenth'~logical conc lusion is that, to be true to the Christian calling, huma ni t y ha d toadv a n c e scientifically an d technologicallyand ta ke controlof nature. The paganism of Greek religion ha d to be shedin or de r that humanitycou ld progress in science. Withthat progression eventuallythere came the power to dominateor control nature. The fact that it took sixteencenturies for people to abandon totallytheir pagan beliefs is not su rpris ing. Faster maintains that it is
"onethingtoad op t a faith bu t quite a different thing to let thatfaith permea te all departments of thoughtandaction.•Ill
EarlyChristianitywas inf il tratedby Greektho ug h tan d belief and only when these Gr e e k elements had been removedco u ld modernnat ural sciencedevelop.
Fo r our purposes a briefoverviewof Greek beliefand its reta rding effpcts on mo de rn natural sc i e nc e is worthy of consider a t ionsinceit is modernnatural science that has put humanit yinapl a ce of controlovernature.
The identification of God wi t hNa tu r e fi nds its earliest expressionin the deificat ionof natural powers wh ich is characte ristic of the Greek polytheis t ic relig i o n. So long as this ide ntific at i o n is both na ive and complete,so long, e.g., as the god issimply not distinguishedatall fromthe naturalobject, it doesnot see m, Lndeed ,
"soecer , "Man' s Idea of Na tu r e ", in Creation Natu r e and Poli tical Ord er in th!:! PhilosophvQfMighael Fo ste r, p. 167.
'0
that the religion foundedupon i t can give rise eitherto a theologyor to a scienceof nacure;"
Fosterseesmodernnaturalscienceas beginningwith neecaecee and Bacon. From thei r timeon science wasverydifferentin its approachtonature than it had beenbefore.
Fo s t e r would agree that the Greeks and Romans were somewhat adva nc e d in scdence, in part i c u l ar a science or philosophyof nnture.There was,however,withinthis science a religiouselement th at containeda fe a r of thegodsanda viewof. nature tha t sawit as alive and afo r c e wi t h awill. Rega r d i ng ancie nt science , Foster says it intel lectua lizedform of nature-worship. Hewr i t e s;
Hence it is cha racteristic of ancien t na t u r a l philosophythat its wh o l e effort is to conformour thoughtto th e nature of things. This nature is thought of as bein g changeless and eternal. The idea that i tmigh t be aubjected to masteryby human will couldhardl y have been entertained bya Greek thinker. This was the idea which Bacon and Desca r tes in trodu c e d intoph i l o s ophy.... 35 Fosterhas a similar premise toWh i t e in thathe th inks longasna t u r e ha da sacredelement ne i the r athe o l o gy aswe nowknow it nor a science of na tu recoul d de v el o p . Th e r e had to beadistinc tionbetween the nat uraland the divine. It is
34Michae l B. Fo s te r, "The Christian Do ctri n e of Crea t ion And The Ris eof Mod e r n Natu r al Science" , Mind· AQuarterly Reyiewofps yc ho l ogy an dPhilosoph y , XLIII (October193 4) , 456.
35Mi c hael Foster, "Some Re marks OnTh e RelationsOf Science And Religion", The Chri s ti an News - Letter, 299 (November 26, 1947), 5.
Jl in the area of ancientandmod e rn science that there is a noticeabledifferencein attitudetowa rdsnature. In Foste r ' s words, -the moderns approach it as anobjecttobemastered, t.he ancients as an ob j e c t to be worshipped .• J' Modern sci ence,accordingtoFo s t e r,haspu t human ityin th e present eveeeof dangerin two wa y s:
(i) It ha s givenm<,.,the powerover nature whLch beca n now abuse.
(i i)Mode r n natural sc ience, inthesame me a sureinwh i c h it hat submitte d nature to man's control, has ema n c ip ated ma nfrom guidancebynature.n Itisth i s secondone thatisthe real cause of the problemas far a Foster is concerned. For thousandsof yearshuman i t y was guided by various elements in nature . Survival both physicallyand psychologicallywas believedtohavede pende d on thisguidance. Placed in a position of power and control, human i t y can no longer look to natureforguidance. Fos t er proposes that peo ple have a real consciou sness of cris is becauseof afeel ing of having beeneradicated fr o m nature and denied ita guidsnce .J. The solut ion , howev er, is not to revert to paganism and declare nature as being divine . Accor d i ng to Foster thereis a more Christ ianapproachwhere nature isreve r e d as the work ofGod, bu t itie notwo r shi ppe d
"s c e ee r, "Re lat ionsof Scienc e and Religion", p,150.
"Fos t e r, "Rel atio nsof Scienc e and Religion", p. 151.
"s o ec e r, "Relationsof Science an d Religion" , p. 151.
32 or givendivine attributes. I tis also his contentionthat modern natural science isnot opposed to this Christianview of creation. Christian teachingmaintains that all of nature was created by God, BOtoo was the firmament. In that sense all of creation was made accordingto the wil l of God. Bythe time modern natural scienceappeared on the scene Christians were ready to accept "theideatha t naturewas a machine and not an or g a n i s m .II) ' Having been created by an omnipotent God, the laws of nature could be depended on to be consistent. This allowed fo r the development of a modern science of nature.
On the Christian conception ... nature is made by God, but is no t God. There is an abrupt break betweennature and God. Divine worship is to be paid to God alone,who is wholly other than nature.
Nature is not divine.to
As a result of this beliAf there are two important consequences which, according to Foster, show the kinship of the Christian with the scientificview:
(i) Nature is not in itself mysterious.
(ii) The mental attitude of science is discontinuous with that of worship.n
This brings us back to the questionof what has gone wronS'.
and a possible solution to the problem of the ecological
"scecer , "Relationsof Science and Religion". p , 166.
"reeeer, "Greekand Christian Ideas of Nature". p,171.
"roecer , "Greek and ChristianIdeas of Nature". p. 171.
33 crisis . Itis here tha t Fo s t e r takes us intothe religiou s realm,in partic ular into the Chr is t i an realm, tohel p us find a solution. As has al ready been stated, it is not that humanity ha s domi nionovercreation tha t is theproblem, but i t is that humanity does not se e itselfas a membe r of the bo d y of Christ. Humani tyhasseized the powerand tried to function indep en de n t l y of a grea terpower. Fo s t e r writes:
Thereme dy is not that mansh ould surre nd erthese powersandat t emptto integratehimselfagain in to nat ure , but that ret a iningthese powe r s he sho u ld int e g r a t e hi ms elf intothebody ofCh r i s t.U
Ev e nt u a l ly all things will comeunderGod, but in the inter im it is God's will tha t all th i ng s be subdued under the sove reigntyof Christ. Christ's sovereignty ie accomplished th rough the churchwh i c h is seen asthe body of Chris t on earth. Foster be lieve s that if people exercised the ir dominion ov e r creationas members of thebody of Christthen their be ha vdour-wou l d be of a responsible nat ur e and the i r adv an cemen t s in science and technology wo u ld havea positive impa c t for human ity. Rolf Gruner a!=l're eswithFoster on this point:
Co n t rary to common be l i ef, theChristianfaithdoes not puz any obstacles in the way of such inve stigatio ns [intonature ]. On thecontrary they arenot onlyal lowedbutposit i vely demandedof the believers, as can be seen from pass age s in Scr i pture suc h as Eccles. 1;13, where it is said th at God hasgiven ma n the tas k 'tosearchout all
t2Foster, "Relat ionsof Science and Natur e", p .156.
34 that isdo ne under heaven,.43
Here Gr u n e r, in agreeme nt with Foster, sees scientif i c invest i g at ion as fulfilling an obligat ion to God and as su pported by Biblica l passages. Harv ey Cox, who m we will consider next in our discussion, willsupport this premise as wel l.
Tobriefly summarize Foster the n it isno tpos s i bl e or faithful to th e Christiancalling to try to revert to a time whenhumanity did not have con t r o l over nature. Nor is it de s i r able or right not to use th is power over nat ure. I f humanit y used this powex in theknowledgethat itis a member of the bodyofChristthen the desiredbehaviour and atti tude woul d be acquired and the ecological crisis resolved. This wi l l onlybe ac c omp l i s he d thr/;,lUgh boththe advencemence of modernscience anda Chri stianapproachto nature.
A second person who propo s es that it is only whe n humanity controls, or attempts to control, its na tural environmen t th a t it is fulfillingthe requirementsof Godis Harvey Co x. Forhimthewh-Le guesti.monhumani ty's ri gh t to have dominion overall of eeeacfcnis~otaquestio n tha t is open for discussion. Whi l e in agreement withFoster that humanit y must co ntrol or dominate, how thi s is donenee ds reassess ing. However, the pri v i lege d place of human i ty as
U Ro l f Gruner, "Scie nc e , Na t ur e and Chris t iani t y ", ~ of Theol og i c al s~, XXVII (Ap ril 1975),58.
35 domi natoris a certaintyforCox, ge arguesth a t thisviewhas supportand is rooted in Biblical teaching . In hisbook,Qn.
Not Leaving It To TheSnake, he asserts:
To be a man means to carefor and loveth e fellow man Eve and with her to have dominion over the earth, to name and care for creatures whom God places inth e human worldof freedom. To weasel out of any of these priv ilegesisto committhe sin of~, to relapse intoslo t h.H
Sloth,as far as Coxis concerned , ishumanity'Sgreatest sin.
He sees i t as an unwi l l i ngnesson thepart of people to be everything tha t theywere intended to be. He saysthatitcan best be understood thrc ugh the Lati nAcedia. ~comes from the Greek wc r ds not caring (9.- oo t; ~-carel.4 5
Whenever a person refuses to have dominion over all of creat ion tha t personis committing the sin of~.
For Coxthen it is not only humanity's right to have domin ion; i t is its dutyto God. In God's Revolution, he writes:
MHe {God ] wence man to have dominion over the worl d, to takecareof i tresponsibly, to celebrate theas t on i s hing fact that it is he re , to thankCod for i t,to participate joy f ul lyinit."46
Thus, Cox is in agreement withWhite ' s viewof how we ste r n personsperceivetheir role in cr eation . The difference is
"gaz-vey Cox, OnNot Le a y i ng I tTo The Snake (Lo ndo n:SCM Press, 1968) ,pp.xvi-xvii.
4~COX, p. ix .
HCOX , God' sReyolution, p,1.9 .
36 that for Coxthis is a correct interpretation of Genesis1: 2 8 whereas for White it is this interpretation that needs to be assessed. White sees humanityas viewing its dominion status as a licence to exploit creation, while Cox sees i t as a benefit in tha t. science, with all of its progress and achievements, is allowed to develop for th e benefit of human ity. Here Cox is in agreement with FrancisBacon who will be discussed later in this thesis. He does differ, however, in that he also includes the idea that humanityhas a responsibility regarding the rest of creation. Dominion wit~responsibility is quite differeut fromdominionwithout responsibility. Taken seriously this approach towards creationwc.u'ld ruleout. an exploitiveattitude. White would argue thatthis idea of responsibilityhas beenlo s t somewhere along the way.
White and Cox are also in agreement in that each maintains that i t was only when nature became desanctified that scienti ficand technologicaladvancements could bemade. While not eradicatingehe 'holy' , Cox eradicates the idea'..If anything inna t u r e being sanctified. God is a transcendent being and God alone, separate fr o m that which has been created, is to be wor s hi pped.
Freed of it s sacred aura, the worl·~ can now be recreatedby man. . ., Space is freed frommagic so
man can thankfull yuse it andde l i g ht dr.it .·~
Ag r e ein gwit hBart hin thi s regard, Coxsees the worl d asa plac e create d fer humani ty.4ft It is up to peo pl e to take full control of al l that na ture provides and to make no apolog yfo r taki ngthat canteoi.
In theagein whichwe presentlylive, termslike control and dominance aa-e notin vogu e and eve nthe term empoweris bec o mi ng less ac c e ptabl e. Suchte rms, howeve r, do not pose any pr o bl e m for Cox as they are us ed in relaCionahip to humanity'splace or role in nature. For him, the human and the products of nature are two separateentities . The human being has a unique posi.tionin creationandCox does not allow for the idea of kinship betweennatureand humans. It ishis convict ionthat ne i the rthe human bein!:;,nor God canbe defined interms of theirre lationshiptona t ur e.
Wi th no kinshi pto nature, andnat ur eha vi ng no sanctity , both hu ma ni ty and natureare free for history, and nat ureis made availab l e for humans to ue ev'" This supports his argument for a t.r a nsce nde nt God and fo r a huma n i ty that is total lyseparatedfrom nature .
UHarve y Cox , OnNo t LeavingIt ToThe Sna ke (Lo ndo n:SCM Pres sLtd., 1968 ) , p,119.
"Cox , p. 120 .
UHarvey Cox , The Secu l a r Cit y (New Yor k:TheMa c mi llan Co., 1968 ),p. 21.
38 Cox does qua l i f y what he me a n s by nature beingavailable for peopletouse. Thistakeaus backto the ideaofsh o wing responsibility towards nature and all of creation. The distinct separatIonbetween nature andhuma ns which he is so emphaticaboutdoes not mean that peopl ehave the rig h t to adopt anabusiveattitudeor behavi o ur. Godlo ves theworld and th e domin i onthat is gi v e n toth e human being is given wi ththat understanding. For Cox, "this world is theth e a t r e of God ' s being with man. "SD The si n of hu ma ni t y is that whileGodhas given people a worldover which they areto have dominion, theyha veallo we d the world tohave dominion over the m. Frederick Elder, inhis book Crisis in Ed e n writes,
"Cox ... is ulti mately God-c e nt r ed, but inthe created order strongly man-c entre d."51 only when people take their right fulplace in creation, that of dominator, wil l th e y be doi ngwhat God requiresof them. Creation, in and of itself, appears to have no intrinsicworthand is certainly not the arenainwhic hGod is revealedor active.
I t is in the pol iticalarena, Cox argues, that God is active. He argues st rongly that God if: in t e r e ste d in political eventsas th e y rela te to humanity and hasonlya
50HarveyCox,God'sRevolution AndMan'sResponsibility (Valley Forge: TheJudson Press, 1969),p . 21.
51Frederick Elde r, Crisis In Edogo (Na s hvi l l e: Abingdon Press, 1970), p. 76.
39 secondary interest in nature.5: It is through political events that God interacts with people. It is herethat nod operates and is present. Nature is importanton l y in asmuch as it is usedbyGod or humanity to achieve what eachha s set out to do. It is thehistorical event, and God' sinteraction with humanity in that event, that is important; notnature's role in the event.
While much of what Cox has to say regardinghumanity's place increation and its rightful treatment of creation can find limited support in Biblical teaching itonly holds up whenit is supportedbyisolated passages or passages that are taken out of context. He too bases his argument primarily on one Genesis creation account,the so-called Yahwistic account. He did not discuss other passages of Scr ipture which might lead one to conclude that all elements of nature have intrinsic value apartfxr-rnhumanity. Aswith White,there are references made to isolatedscriptural passages without any consideration being given to the overall theme or tone of Scripture regarding God's creation . For example .th r o ugho u t the crea tionstorythe reader is told that God sawall that was created and i t was good and in Psalmathe beauty and greatness of nature is certainlyconsidered as the Psalmist praises and thanks Yahweh. Cox chooses not to consider this
S7C OX, Gad'sReVolution, p. 22.
40 in his argu me n t. In addition tohis usage of the YahW'istic account he also us(:s one other verse from the Pr ies t l y accoun t, that verse ~ing Genesis 1:28. In thi s humanity is given 'dominion'. In reference to Cox's interp retationof th i s passage Eldern itee:
Goddoes notsimply insert man into a worldfilled wi th creatu res which are already named , in re l a tio nships and meaning pat terns already establ ished bydecree. Man must fa s hion them hims e l f. He simpl y doe sn't di s cov er me a ning; he or igina tesit.
The imp lications of this [f or Cox] ar e clea r enough. Ma n sta nds ov er aga i nst natu re in a
~~~f~~~)o~~e~Iabl~e~~t~~~~h~~~ de~n i~es t:~r i~~~)ect
Usingthi eline of argument Cox couldpursueth(~ide a that the time is right for a "new man- in a "new age-.~4 It is interest ingthoughthat Coxdoesnot.see nature,orthe very earth on which people dwe l l , as haVing much, i f any, signif icance inthedevelopmentof this -newman-other than thathe should show complete and unconstrained domini-on over cre a t i o n. He writes :
Modernmangrasps hi s identity th ro u g h his perso nal sty le of life . But the iden ti t y he grasps is mediat ed to hi m by cons tant interaction with hi s society, his fa mily, his work , hi s commun i t y.5!i Humani ty' Sidentitythe n is notevenpa r t ially determi nedby
5JE l de r, pp ,14 -7 5.
54COX, QnNot LeayingIt ToTh @Snake, p. 92.
!i!iCox, p. 99.
41 its relationshipwi ththe othercomponents of creation. While there may beholy places where Go d meets people,acc ordingto Cox these pl a c es are not sanctified. God is spirit and transcendent. Ther e f o r e i tisno t: where one encounters God tha t is imp or ta n tandnosanc t ity is to be attached to any place. For Cox this is a good thing. It Allows for humanizationas heseesi t tobec omemore of a rea lity .
We cannot speak about: God's presenceinsome kind of natural element~ifwe start byide n t ifyin g God primarily with nat ur al phenomena. whether it is sunsets or beautiful lakes. then we are on the wr o ng erack."
Withreferencetothe chur c h , Coxbelievest.hatthechu r c h as it isnowknown has to die inorder to allowfor anew birth.
The presentchurchis no longer relevantformod e r n humanity in the secular age. The churchis not theplacewh ere Godis presently liberatingpeople. This liberationis occurringin the world. Cox is concerned that as a res ul t of all th e emphasisonthe serv antroleof thech u rch, humanityma y miss the gospel call. He sees th is as a ca ll to , "adul t stewardship,to originality,inven tiveness, andthegov e r na nc e of th e world."S ?
Theministr yof the church inth e secularcitymust includea contemporaryex t e n sionofexorcism . Men must be called away from their fascination with othe r wor l ds- -a s t r o l ogi cal, me t aphysi cal , or
S~cox, ~~, 23.
S1COX,QnNotLeav i ng ItToThe sn ake , p .xvii.
42 religious - -ancJ.summoned to conf ront the concrete issues of this one • wherein the true call of God canbe foun d '.51
The tr u e call of God for Coxis one I:h rough wh i c h thereis a totalliberation fr om the idea thatther e is anyt hingsacred aboutnatu r e. It is a liberation that encourageshuma nit y to manipulate and use nature in any way possible for the advancement of sciencewhi ch will in the end he of great benefit for human ity. WhenCoxwri t e s aboutthewo rl dit is not in the sense of the physical wo r ld and allof crea t ion, but in the sense of the political wo r l d and the world of socialand wor k interactions be twe en pe op l e. As explained above this is the only area in whi ch God is revealed to humani ty, and accord i ngto Cox, the cr.Lyarea through whic h Godworkswith huma ni t y .
IftheBi ble actuallysupportsCox'5 argument then Lynn Whi te is correct whe n he says that many of our ec ol og i c a l problemsstem from theJudeo -cnristian teachings as foundin the Bible. Beginning in the nextchap te r of this thesiswe wi ll discredi tmuchof thesuppo rt Coxuses andwillshowthat his -man -cen ered '' view of creation needs much more just ification than he gives.
A thi r d pers onto beconsideredand whoha scont ribu t ed muchto our disc us s i onis StanleyL.Jaki. In stUdying Jaki
~ICOX.The Sec ularCity,p. 134.
