Judeo‐Christian theology and the environment: moving beyond scepticism to new sources for environmental education in the United States

Abstract

In the USA, many environmental educators have paid little attention to Western Christian and Jewish ecotheology, in spite of its being a potentially rich resource for environmental education. In part, this neglect can be attributed to popular misconceptions about the influence of religious beliefs on environmental values. This essay reviews the results of relevant empirical studies within the environmental sociology literature since 1977 to clarify common misconceptions. Conclusions from these empirical studies and other sources may make it easier for environmentalists to reconsider the resources of ecotheology. Reconsidering ecotheology is also practical in that it provides environmental education a means of better connecting with the primary values of many citizens, offers new partnership possibilities for building environmental education infrastructure, and broadens the pluralistic base for environmental ethics. Several basic tenets of ecotheology offer starting points for educators by providing common ground between theology and environmental education.

Acknowledgements

This article is dedicated to the memory of John F. Disinger (1930–2005), a lifelong member of the church in which the author was raised, and an early advisor to this work. Richard Baer, Jim Tantillo, Jamie Skillen, and Karl Johnson provided patient feedback on early drafts, and the suggestions of the editors and two anonymous reviewers substantially improved the final manuscript.

Notes

1. ‘Ecotheology’ is used as a general term to refer to theologies or religious teachings that address environmental concerns. This definition is imprecise in at least two ways—not all spiritual and religious insights that bear on the environment are considered theology, and theological insights have varying degrees of environmental applicability. Yet ecotheology has developed along several characteristic lines, such as the stewardship, eco‐justice, and creation spirituality traditions within Christianity noted by Kearns (1996). Denominational environmental policy statements (see Ellingsen, 1993; Harvard Forum on Religion and Ecology, n.d.; and NRPE, n.d.) are also representative of the substance and scope of ecotheology.

2. The term Judeo‐Christian is problematic, and it should not be taken to suggest a generalized or common Jewish‐Christian religious tradition. It is retained here to indicate Jewish and Christian traditions respectively, which, although they do share ecotheological tenets in common—particularly from Hebrew Bible/Old Testament sources—also have distinctive theologies, traditions, and approaches to ethics.

3. Disappointingly, Moyers (Griscom, 2003) does not cite an actual example of Genesis or ‘dominion’ being used to justify environmental exploitation or disregard. The only direct example Moyers gives of an anti‐environmental end time belief is a misquote of James Watt from the early 1980s which Moyers has subsequently retracted because of its gross inaccuracy—in fact Watt’s actual words suggest the opposite of Moyers’ claim (see below and Hinderacker, 2005; Moyers, 2005; cf. Stoll, 1997, pp. 188–192). Moyers revisits this debate, however, in an October 2006 television program titled: ‘Is God Green?’ which examines recent developments in the environmental views of conservative and evangelical Christians (visit www.pbs.org/moyers for more information).

4. Theological literature on the environment is vast (see Cobb, 1996; Sheldon, 1992; or Wildman, 2006, which lists more than 2000 citations), and includes many works predating and contemporary with Earth Day (e.g. Baer, 1966, 1969, 1971; Heschel, 1951, 1955; Santmire, 1970, 1975; Schaeffer, 1970; Sittler, 1954, 1964, 1970). The activities of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment can be browsed at www.nrpe.org as an introduction to further religious environmental activity.

5. Opponents of religion may be reticent to give up as popular an argument as White’s Thesis, which plays nicely alongside secular arguments asserting the inferiority of religious views in the face of allegedly more rational alternatives (Smith, 2003). However, even if critics persist in believing that an appreciable anti‐environmental influence has come from improper church teachings regarding ‘dominion’ in Genesis, there remains little debate over whether biblical theology itself offers support for environmentally irresponsible ‘mastery over nature’ views. The Bible clearly acknowledges human power and its destructive capacity, especially when sin takes humanity askew of God’s intentions, yet the Bible never grants exploitative license in the use of creation. Nevertheless, environmental criticisms of the Genesis texts have tended to rely on narrowly literal studies of just a few sentences in Genesis, which ignore the majority of the biblical corpus and seem ignorant of the context of even the Genesis stories. Despite Lynn White’s (mis)interpretation of orthodoxy, theologians overwhelmingly affirm that the biblical concept of ‘dominion’ does not imply domination and exploitation, but rather is a charge to responsible care taking, stewardship, or shepherding (Lohfink, 1982, pp. 178–179; Rogerson, 1991), of the sort that leads to shalom (Limburg, 1991; Steffen, 1992). The moral issue concerns how humans exercise their power over nature, not whether they possess it (cf. Baer et al. 2004), since neither degradation nor ‘earthkeeping’ would be possible without it. As Steffen (1992) has made clear, the biblical stories of dominion in Genesis provide a critique of domination rather than its sanction. Note in this regard that humans are not specifically re‐charged with having dominion when human origins are re‐calibrated after the Flood (Bouma‐Prediger, 2001, p. 98), and that God then covenants with Noah and with all life on earth (Genesis 9:1–17). Note also that unlike other themes from the first chapter of Genesis, human dominion over the earth and its creatures is never again re‐emphasized in the entire biblical corpus, except in the context of the Psalmist’s incredulous wonderment over God (Psalm 8), and perhaps in king Solomon’s unprecedented wise reign that was characterized by shalom (I Kings 4:24–25; Psalm 72). Virtually all other references are to God (e.g. Psalm 22:28) or Christ (Ephesians 1:10, 12; cf. Daniel 7:13–14; Zechariah 9:10) having such dominion, ostensibly in the form of servant leadership (Matthew 20:25; I Peter 5:2–3). It is simply theologically incoherent to claim that dominion as put forth in Genesis is intended to sanction despoliation of the environment (Hiers, 1984; Lohfink, 1994).

6. Negative correlations remained within some studies, too, but none sufficient to add favour to White’s Thesis. Some researchers thus conclude that both positive and negative influences can be noted amid the complex influence of religious variables (Tarakeshwar et al., 2001; Wolkomir et al., 1997a, b), or that regional or political differences may explain these variations (Kanagy & Nelsen, 1995). Others point out that negative correlations are insignificant compared to political and other demographic factors (Black, 1997), concluding ultimately that religion does not strongly or uniquely influence empirical indicators of environmental attitudes and behaviours (Dekker et al., 1997; Ester & Seuren, 1992), a conclusion reminiscent of the geographer Tuan. Social science data of this type will likely remain inconclusive in pronouncing any ultimate judgment, both because of methodological limitations and because of the fact that religious influence is neither monolithic nor static.

7. Guth and colleagues (1993, 1995) identified conservative eschatology, that is, views on the end times and relating to social pessimism, as correlating negatively with attitudes toward environmental policies and priorities among evangelical Christians. No behaviour measures were included in this study, but these findings underscore the political differences indicated by Cizik, and perhaps reflect conservative opposition to government regulation. For instance, one study found liberal religious northerners to be least likely to favour relaxing environmental controls, and conservative religious southerners most likely to oppose governmental environmental controls (Kanagy & Nelsen, 1995). This example points to a difference in political philosophy regarding the proper role of government, rather than to a difference in religious beliefs. Alternatively, Cizik’s other points do relate more directly to theological concerns, suggesting that attention to these beliefs (rather than to dominion or end time beliefs) may be more fruitful for religious‐environmental dialogue.