I have been reading “Environmental Missions” by Lowell Bliss. It has been a good book. But I have been struggling a bit with two or three issues that Bliss goes over quite a bit. I do think there is a healthy place for Evangelical Environmentalism. I know this is a bit controversial especially in the American form of Evangelicalism where Environmentalism is often almost seen as a dirty word. But that makes the coming to terms with three issues even more important.

Issue #1. Should we see the World around us as Robust or Fragile? Do we see the world as being a place that can be easily harmed or even destroyed, or do we see it as a place that resists any efforts to do long-term or serious harm?

Issue #2. Should we see the World as primarily sustained by God or by Man?

Issue #3. Is the World around us valuable? I would like to address this one. Yes, the world around us is valuable/important. First, it is important since it is important to God. God created it and declared it good. And if you read the Psalms, for example, God did not lose interest in it after the Fall. Second, it is valuable because we need it to live. We have yet to find another place in the universe that has the characteristics that we can live in. If the world ceases to be, we have no place else to go at this time, and no likely prospects. Third, it is our eternal home. As N.T. Wright regularly says (and this should hardly be a controversial stance since the Bible clearly states it), this World is our eternal home. Unlike what the gospel song says, “This World IS my home…. I am NOT just passin’ through…”. Heaven and Earth join together for eternity. Now some note that this world is supposed to be replaced by a New Earth… but we don’t really know what level of discontinuity this entails. But even if it involved a complete discontinuity, I don’t see that leading us to devalue it. Do we devalue our pets because they will eventually die? Do we devalue our house because it will not endure forever? Actually, the answer to both of these is “somewhat.” But even so we care for our pets and seek to keep them healthy as long as we can. We care for our houses and seek to keep them from setting into squalor. The ephemeral has at least some value… and we know that this world… in some sense at least… is eternal. If we value the ephemeral to any extent, we must value this world more.

So I will start from the presumption that this world should be valued by us… but for the other two issues, lets lay them out in quadrants.

Let’s start in the Upper Right Quadrant and work around counterclockwise. This is the view that the world is robust and God sustains it. This might be the most common (or at least most commonly expressed view) in American (political) Evangelicalism. I am calling it “Evangelical Consumerism.” I am sure there is a better term, but I am not sure what. Some would use the term “Evangelical Capitalism,” but I haven’t really seen evidence that political theories that contrast Capitalism (such as Socialism or Communism) are more concerned about the Environment. Consumerism, according to Oxford Languages can be defined as “the protection or promotion of the interests of consumers,” or more negatively, “the preoccupation of society with the acquisition of consumer goods.” The first definition is suggestive of priorities that are focused on human wants that may not be environmentally sustainable. The second definition is similar but a bit more explicit.

The logic is that God made a world that is either so robust that we really can’t do anything to ruin it, or that God has the will as well as the capacity to sustain to a point that we can’t really ruin anything. I recall listening to Rush Limbaugh (American radio personality a few decades ago). He was talking about global warming/climate change. He stated that it was “just plain hubris” to suggest that we as humans can do anything to change the climate in any sort of broad or long–term way. It certainly is hubris to think so if we cannot… but that is the question. Is the world so robust that we cannot effect it in a major way? I am not convinced. But let’s move on.

Upper Left Quadrant. Some would say that the world is so environmentally robust that we cannot do much to change things, regardless of whether there is a God/god who has the ability or desire to sustain it. From a theological standpoint, it could be seen as linked to Deism, in the sense that perhaps God created the world and then left it alone as a great clockwork. And it was so perfectly designed that we cannot really screw it up. For those who reject Deism, they may embrace a sort of Gaia Hypothesis of a resilient evolutionary system. Regardless, the end result is a secular sort of consumerism. Human responsibility for the environment is minimal or focused largely on consuming it and hiding the waste. with the presumption that doing so is “good” or at least “sustainable” regardless of what are actions or inactions are.

Lower Left Quadrant. This is Classic Environmentalism. The world is environmentally fragile, and we must protect it… or else. This is the one that a lot of Evangelicals like to hold up as the dichomistic “other option.” If we can show that the underpinnings of Classic Environmentalism are flawed, then our own view, Evangelical Consumerism MUST be correct. Of course, almost nothing truly fits into two USEFUL categories with no other options. There are most definitely other options.

Lower Right Quadrant. The world is environmentally fragile, but God is the sustainer. I would argue that this is the strongest position from a theological standpoint. There is good reason to see God as not merely the Creator… but also the Sustainer (as well as Redeemer) of this world. I would also say that there is good reason to see it as fragile. The fact that even before the Fall, Man was told to take on a steward role in nature at least suggests failing to do this would be… bad. Additionally, we have a growing collection of data that suggests that we can truly mess up the world when we make bad choices. This is part of theological discourse as well. Theology must draw from both special AND general revelation. A good bit of data in support of this view is the “Aral Sea.” Look it up. It is one of the most clearcut examples (in my view) that bad human decisions can devastate a region. What is especially concerning is that the decision was consumer-driven. Massive irrigation to increase cotton production and such led to the sea drying up and that led to huge secondary environmental problems. In the short-term at least, the environment in the region of the (former) Aral Sea was not resilient. Will things improve later with our efforts or without them? Time will tell.

But what makes the Upper Right Quadrant different from the Lower Right if both say that God is the sustainer? I think it boils down to this…

Upper Right: God sustains a robust environment and so doesn’t really need or even want our help.

Lower Right. God sustains a fragile environment and expects us to not only not undermine his work, but actually assist as faithful stewards.

Again, I am throwing out one of the issues— the question of the value of the world around us. I know many don’t accept this… but once the theological paucity of this perspective (that we cannot or should not value the world around us) the four options really must push us towards the lower left quadrant.