The ecological debate has taken a distinct turn during the last two years. The ecological campaign began as a radical offshoot from the older nature conservation movement and has never been able to quite rid itself of the suspicion that it was more interested in the survival of some subspecies of fox than in the survival of starving millions of human beings. Other symptoms of the tendency in question were the resentment several of its authors held against the mere concept of “environment” as being typically man-centered, and their obvious resolve not only to halt the much advertised “population explosion” but to reduce the earth’s population considerably (in the case of Britain by one-third) in order to allow the rest to return to a life of immediate correspondence with and enjoyment of nature.
Extremes like these set apart, the ecological uproar of recent years has rightly met with the applause and support of a vast number of people who feel that man is not meant to become a natural invalid and who certainly sympathize with the slogan coined in over-populated Europe: man has an inborn need for a quiet house and fishing water.
In 1972 Dennis Meadows’s book The Limits of Growth somewhat marked the apex of this environment-oriented phase of debate. His passionate call for overall zero growth, though, particularly challenged the sociologists who with fierce resentment pointed out that this would mean the stabilization of present prerogatives: affluence for the rich, and poverty for the poor forever.
The second report to the Club of Rome—that high-powered body of top scientists and big-business strategists—written by Mesarovic and Pestel for its Berlin session in October last year not only dropped the idea of zero growth but also flatly stated that there were two cleavages to bridge, one between man and nature, the other between rich and poor. Moreover, instead of a global analysis they offered a regionalized study of the world’s problems and pleaded for cooperation between world regions of different character. The problem of man’s handling of nature is thus linked to the seemingly imminent problem that the world food and energy crisis presents: the problem of distribution.
The same turn of topic may now also be observed in Christian publications on the subject. The first phase of the ecological debate—on the relation of man and nature—brought forward that magnificent though short statement by Francis Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology (1970). This book will be of lasting importance, just as much of the environment problem remains after the coming of socio-political emphases.
Representative of Christian participation in the present phase of debate is Thomas Sieger Derr’s Ecology and Human Liberation: A Theological Critique of the Use and Abuse of Our Birthright, jointly produced by the WCC’s Department of Church and Society and the World Student Christian Federation (1973). This is quite a remarkable book, written with systematic vigor and clear thinking.
The American author Derr anticipates the conviction of Mesarovic and Pestel, i.e., that “we have to satisfy two needs, justice and the protection of the biosphere.” Note the sequence. Derr believes that man’s bond to his fellow human beings is stronger than his bond to the rest of nature. So he seeks to find a theology of nature that is socially responsible. His concept is demonstrated from the biblical sources and with constant powerful argument against the attacks leveled at Christianity on ecological grounds, and against the different philosophies, such as romanticism and pantheism, offered as substitutes.
Man, states Derr, controls nature but as a “caretaker.” There is no such thing in Genesis as a command from God to treat the earth irresponsibly. On the contrary, the biblical idea of property right from the beginning, and as opposed to its counterpart in Roman law, carries the notion of responsibility.
Coming to the problem of distribution of resources, Derr therefore finds that compared with other suggested systems of thought the traditional Christian emphasis on supporting the weak, feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked is most helpful for tackling today’s crisis. Except for a certain leaning to Teilhardian tendencies and a grossly irrational attitude pro abortion, Derr’s main argument is clear, sound, and useful.
Christians should certainly attempt to keep abreast of these recent developments in the ecology/distribution debate and continually think through the application of the Christian message to this subject. These are central problems for humanity, even if the fashion of the day turns away from them. It is here that the doctrine of God’s sustenance of creation comes into force in Christian ethics. Here is a field that calls for the Christian message of creation and redemption to be put into practice, and here is a ready ground to show the superiority of this message.
Christianity can never be satisfied with replacing destruction of nature by mere non-destruction. It does not stop at an ethics of avoidance. God orders Adam not to destroy but to guard and develop the garden that He created. In the same way He asks man to take on the sustenance of his fellow man (Lev. 25:35).
There are two ways of life that Christ says human beings adopt in the open space of time before his Second Coming: man will be either a destroyer or a provider (Matt. 24:45–51). These two types come up dramatically side by side in real life in Matthew 14. There we see King Herod “eating and drinking,” and not only beating but killing his fellow servant, John the Baptist, for the sake of a party whim. Next there is Christ, feeling mercy for the hungry masses and feeding them, Christ himself the “faithful and wise servant.” His words in Matthew 24:45 quote that well-known verse, Psalm 104:27: “These wait all upon thee that thou mayest give them their food in due season.” This very work of God Christ now entrusts to his servants: to sustain, to give good to their fellow men, to maintain them, body and spirit.
Let Christians therefore be reminded of his word, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35), and of St. Paul’s realistic application of it in Ephesians 4:28—“Let him that stole steal no more, but rather let him labor … that he may have to give to him that needeth.”
