In this article from 1996, Professor Desmond Gillmore assesses the impact of the concept of ‘ecological dominion’ within Judaeo-Christian theology on humanity’s relationships with, attitudes to, and care-taking of the natural world. He explores the negative perceptions surrounding the use of Genesis 1:26 to justify a careless and brutal stewardship of our planet; and offers alternative readings of God’s promises to humanity as they relate to our place within, and use of, nature and the world’s natural resources.
Desmond Gillmore is a Fellow Emeritus in Geography at Trinity College Dublin, and has contributed a number of articles to Studies.
Desmond A. Gillmor, ‘The Ecological Crisis and Judaeo-Christian Religion’, Studies: An Irish Review, Vol. 85, No. 339 (Autumn, 1996), 261-270. JSTOR link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30091215
The constant references in the media to issues such as depletion of the ozone layer, global warming, acid rain, deforestation, desertification, famine, land degradation, loss of habitat, extinction of species, nuclear accidents and pollution in all its forms, together with national and local environmental conflicts, should be sufficient reminders of the ecological crisis facing humankind. The blame for humanity’s maltreatment of the environment which has caused this crisis is laid firmly on the Judaeo-Christian tradition by many ecologists and textbooks dealing with environmental matters. It is argued that the basic tenets of the Judaeo-Christian religion and interpretations of them down the ages have been unfavourable towards the environment, so that religion bears a huge burden of guilt for the damage done. These views were put most influentially by Lynn White in a frequently cited and reprinted lecture to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1966 but similar charges have been made in varying forms by many others.
A starting point would be to seek alternative interpretations of the creation narrative. One possibility is that the word ‘dominion’ may have had a meaning for a people in the Middle East more than two millennia ago different from the modern connotation of domination. Dominion implied kingship and in the Bible this was often linked with responsibilities to subjects rather than tyrannical despotism. Hebrew kings were answerable to God for the well being of their realms. Even if the conferring of a responsibility were not accepted, it can be argued that the creation of nature for humanity’s sake and the granting of control over it did not in themselves involve a ruthlessly exploitative imperative either.
The instruction ‘to subdue’ should be seen also in the context of a desire to tame and continue to control the harsh environment of the biblical lands in order to improve the land and have an easier existence. In this, as always, it is important to see the Bible in the context of its time, for being fruitful and multiplying and unlimited extension of cultivation were very different in a lightly-peopled world where wilderness was a threat, as compared with the situation on modern spaceship earth. Furthermore the view of nature as having purely instrumental value for humanity may have its origins more in Greek than in Hebrew sources.
…Further, the creation account can indicate that the integrity of the created universe was God’s will, as there was order and peace when harmony between God, humankind and nature prevailed. Every element in the whole created order was precious to God, who ‘saw that it was good’. All creation was living together harmoniously on the seventh day; this day of rest by God, and not the making of humans, was seen as the pinnacle of creation by the theologian Jurgen Moltmann. The subsequent fall of Adam affected not only humanity but the natural world as well; human sin lies behind the destructive exploitation of the environment, which is morally wrong. Sin distorts the God-human-nature interrelationship.
Also it is fundamentally important to recognize the basic differences in the second, and older, creation story given as an alternative in Genesis 2. It saw creation as involving the transformation of desert into garden by a caring God. This interpretation implies that humanity was created in order to till the earth and was linked to it organically through being formed from its dust. Adam was put in Eden to care for the garden, tending for it for both food and pleasure, but limits were set to his use of nature. This is an environmentally-friendly relationship quite different from despotism.
…The interdependence between God, humanity and nature was emphasized in the covenant between God and Noah. The licence to multiply and to subdue the earth given to Adam and Noah was not included in Moses’ transmission of the law. In the mosaic covenant and elsewhere in the Bible, limitations were imposed on excesses in a wide variety of human behaviours, so it might be inferred that there would be similar constraints on environmental exploitation for personal gain. That the human alteration of nature was constrained in various ways can be implied more directly from biblical instructions concerning respect for the rest of creation, working the land wisely, care of animals and public welfare, for example; conservation is a biblical concept. Sabbatical rest was to be for the benefit of the land and animals as well as of people.
(…)
The Hebrew Bible’s most pervading image of nature is as an instrument of divine justice, whereby transgression was punished by a deteriorating environment, natural disaster and loss of productivity, while a beneficent environment was a reward for good behaviour. Humanity’s need to subdue the earth began with the expulsion from Eden. Major difficulties were not encountered at first but the early books of the Bible recorded these increasing in severity with people’s erroneous ways. Environmental retribution in the form of natural disasters ensured that they did not achieve dominion over nature. In contrast, a beautiful and productive environment, as in the ‘promised land’, was considered a sign of divine favour and reward…In turn, maltreatment of the earth had its consequences. Over the span of the Old Testament, the simple granting of dominion is seen as conditional, in being limited and revocable, and it evolves into a dream that is thwarted by human frailty. This is rather different from the idea of humanity’s despotism over nature…
…Although there is little direct environmental advice in the New Testament, the respect of Jesus towards nature and the simple lifestyles exemplified by him and his followers as they trod lightly on the earth were far removed from environmental despotism and consumerism…That God’s purpose embraces nature as well as humanity was part of Pauline doctrine; the whole of creation had groaned together in travail waiting for the redemption which would extend to all and would bring everything together in Christ. In the end the harmony of creation will be complete in the presence of God. This provides a basis for recent holistic thinking concerning creation and redemption.
Within the Church down the centuries there have been interpretations of the relationship between humans and the environment other than that of the despotism model.
Examples of appreciative and caring attitudes included those of St Anthony, the Celtic church, the Benedictines, St Francis of Assisi, Hildegarde of Bingen and Eastern Orthodox Christianity…St Francis had a family relationship with the rest of creation, seeing it as being loved by God and loving God, but his interpretation made little impact on the Church in general. He was selected by Pope John Paul II as the patron saint of ecology in 1979. In these interpretations there had been elements of a stewardship model but this developed from the seventeenth century and more so recently. It has been the principal alternative to despotism.
The stewardship concept has biblical roots in being based on interpretations of the dominion in the creation account, of the covenants and of parables of Jesus as involving responsibilities and answerability…One disadvantage is that the concept may seem to set people apart from the rest of creation as managers rather than as partners with nature.
More recently, there has developed in theology the idea of immanence, whereby God is considered to be present and active in nature. The tension between the idea of God being sovereign over and outside nature and that of a divine presence within nature goes back to Old Testament times. The transcendent God remote from creation had been emphasized to make clear the distinction between the single God of the Hebrews, giving them their identity, and the many gods worshipped by surrounding peoples.
(…)
(…)
Ecological affairs seem a particularly appropriate field for practical ecumenism. Notable milestones in the expression of ecological concern by the major Christian churches were Towards a Just, Participative and Sustainable Society (1979) and Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation, (1990) by the World Council of Churches, and On Social Concern (1988) and Peace with God the Creator: Peace with All of Creation (1990) by Pope John Paul II. An important emphasis common to these documents was the essential inter-relatedness of social justice and ecological sustainability.
Today there is a growing awareness within Christianity of the importance of nature and of the need for proper ecological and moral relationships between the human and non-human worlds. Modern science, including the study of evolution and ecology, has helped to narrow the perceived gap between the two worlds, reinstating the unity of creation.
(…)
…It may be said that charging the Judaeo-Christian religious tradition as being guilty of causing the world ecological crisis is a somewhat partisan and simplistic view. The current problem is attributable more to modern materialism in pursuit of money and power, and based on advanced technological and economic development. Yet the Christian Church must bear some responsibility for environmental mistreatment because it promoted or allowed certain literal interpretations of the scriptures and ways of thinking which were unfavourable to nature, and it did not provide environmentally friendly guidance and leadership as an alternative. Having repented and changed, it must devise a new ecological morality.
(…)