When enough is enough - A Christian framework for environmental sustainability

Towards a theology of sustainability

‘Sustainability’ is a concept in search of a home. Many have an idea of what it means, but scratch beneath the surface and the ideas are diverse at best, contradictory at worst.

Today sustainability has become a great rallying cry, adopted by politicians, economists, multinational corporations, scientists, environmentalists, town planners and faith leaders . . . but they use it to mean what they want it to mean.

This chapter tries to put sustainability in its place — to attempt to define it, by asking key questions. What are we to sustain, why, and for whom? Are we sustaining for ourselves, for future generations, for other species, or for the earth itself? Why so — for self-preservation, or for broader altruistic purposes? What is it that gives us our drive to sustain, and what gives individual species and whole ecosystems their value? What makes them worthy of being sustained? On what philosophical or ethical value system is sustainability based? As we explore these questions, we shall find that a biblical theology of sustainability is not only possible, but is arguably the most plausible and practical approach to a sustainable world.

Defining terms

It was in 1987, in preparation for the Brundtland Report ‘Our Common Future’, that the World Commission on Environment and Development first drafted the most widely used definition of Sustainable Development: ‘Sustainable development seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future.’

While this is helpful in that everybody can agree to it, it is capable of endless interpretation. A simple web search reveals dozens of competing definitions, both of ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’. Here, we shall use the single word ‘sustainability’ rather than the more problematic concept of ‘sustainable development’.

It is generally held that there are broadly three potential philosophical foundations for understanding the relationship of human beings to their environment (and thus to understanding sustainability): the anthropocentric, the ecocentric and the theocentric.

* The anthropocentric view says that the world is here for human use and enjoyment. Sustainability is simply our responsibility to provide enough for fellow humans and for future human generations.

* The ecocentric view sees humans as simply one part of an interdependent biosphere, with no greater rights than any other part. We sustain for the greater good.

*The theocentric view sees the world (human and non-human) as deriving its value from being created and sustained by God.

From this, it can be seen immediately that the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainability is implicitly anthropocentric — the ‘needs and aspirations’ of human beings are central. Similarly, and more recently, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) is self-consciously anthropocentric — perhaps in order to appeal to those politicians and businesses that will listen only to self-interest. Thus the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment describes the state of the planet in terms of those ‘ecosystem services’ on which human welfare depends. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’s logo of planet Earth in the shape of a small house, elegantly encapsulates this anthropocentric notion of sustainability. ‘Ecology’ is derived from the Greek oikos, ‘home’, and this notion of sustainability is all about keeping our house in order for our sakes.

Christianity has often been seen as supporting the anthropocentric position. In Lynn White’s famous words, from his influential article (1967) in Science, Western Christianity is ‘the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen’. There is plenty of evidence to support such a view. The Swiss Reformer John Calvin (1847: 98) stated, ‘the end for which all things were created [was] that none of the convenience and necessities of life might be wanting to men’. Even the patron saint of ecologists, St. Francis of Assisi (1959: 145) stated, ‘Every creature proclaims: “God made me for your sake O man!”’

Critique of the West

However, it is often forgotten that Lynn White was critiquing not Christianity per se but a Western aberration of it, and saw solutions to the problem in a rediscovery of alternative traditions within Christianity. The anthropocentrism that White identifies owes more to Greek philosophy and Renaissance humanism than the biblical tradition (Bauckham, 2002). As we shall see shortly, a biblical theology of sustainability is predicated on an understanding that the world is ultimately for God, not for human beings. Psalm 24.1 states: ‘The earth is the LORD’s and everything in it’ (NIV). In the New Testament, Colossians 1.16 goes further by saying that all things were created ‘by’ and ‘for’ Jesus Christ.

Technocentrism

Thus the anthropocentric view is ultimately fundamentally flawed, because (1) it sees human beings as somehow above or separate from the rest of the biosphere, and because (2) it places too much faith in human endeavour to find solutions to the crises we cause. Anthropocentrism leads directly to technocentrism — faith in the ingenuity of humanity, in the progress of science and its practical applications.

Historically, anthropocentrism has led inexorably to short-term self-interested use of the planet, which is seen as there for our benefit alone. We are consumers, developers and answerable only to ourselves. The great fallacy of anthropocentrism is this blind faith in humanity, a faith people today are losing fast — faced with the potential nightmares of human-caused climate change, resource depletion and profit-led genetic modification. Even within the environmental movement, the generation that put its faith in governments and individuals changing once they know the facts is fast disappearing. The Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in 1992 was a watershed in its acknowledgment that, while we know more and more about both the crisis and the potential solutions, people don’t want to change.

Beyond New Age

The second, ecocentric, view is increasingly popular, moving beyond ‘alternative’ and ‘new age’ circles into mainstream philosophical (if not yet always scientific) thinking. The environmental crisis is seen to be caused by an alienating mechanistic distancing between humans and their environment, and can be overcome or healed, or can regain sustainability, only through an integrated and harmonious holding together of all things.

The ecocentric view is profoundly attractive to postmodern people, disillusioned with ‘progress’ and the empty benefits of materialism. It has taken many forms, from deep ecology, through ecofeminism to attempts by those such as Matthew Fox to create an ecocentric Christian ‘creation theology’. Fox is rightly regarded by most mainstream Christians as having rejected the heart of the Christian faith — in denying the need for redemption, in favour of a creation theology that emphasises self-realisation and absorption.

However, orthodox biblical Christianity has more in common with an ecocentric view than is often realised. While one can search the Bible and Christian writers to find ‘anthropocentric’ proof texts, one can also find passages that show humans to be part of the ecosystem rather than above it, interdependent rather than independent. Genesis 2 speaks of the first human as Adam, made from adamah, the ‘dust’ or ‘soil’. The majority of the Old Testament is about the interrelationship of people and place — chosen people and Promised Land. St. Francis of Assisi talked of ‘brother sun and sister moon’, and many of the great Christian mystics drew inspiration from their encounter with the divine in and through creation. The biblical narrative shows that there is, ultimately, no theology without ecology.

Ethical problems

Despite these positive comments, there are two major problems with an ecocentric view — one practical and the other theological. In practical terms, the problem with an ecocentric view of sustainability is that it quickly leads to ethical dilemmas over intervention. If humans are merely one among the millions of species, with no inherent distinct value or role, what right have we to intervene in natural systems?

We are going to see clashes increase in coming years, as the fault lines deepen between the modern largely anthropocentric science-based world that assumes human rights and abilities to adapt and intervene, and a postmodern ecocentric mentality where humans are viewed as an evolutionary anomaly that causes more harm than good to the planet.

John Stott (2000: 9) elegantly encapsulates the flaws respectively of both the ecocentric and anthropocentric positions in saying, ‘We must not treat nature obsequiously as if it were God, nor behave towards it arrogantly as if we were God.’ However, today, with this impasse between the two main models of sustainability (the anthropocentric and the ecocentric), there exists a great and pressing opportunity for a third model: a theocentric understanding of sustainability based on biblical principles. I propose that it is here, within the Judaeo-Christian tradition, that the concept of sustainability most naturally finds its home, and suggest a series of theological propositions, each with ethical and practical outcomes, which can provide alternative pillars for a Christian understanding of sustainability.

Dave Bookless

The Rev. Dave Bookless is Director of A Rocha UK, based in Southall.

This article is an edited extract from Chapter 2 of When Enough is Enough: A Christian Framework for Environmental Sustainability (Apollos, 2007), ed. R.J. Berry, £11.99, 192 pages, ISBN 1 84474 180 9. Available in your local Christian bookshop or via http://www.ivpbooks.com