Global Warning
Biblical Environmental Stewardship

Is there a Biblical position on the environment to use in assessing the global warming [gw] debate? From Scripture we know that when He created the world, God set aside a unique place, the Garden of Eden, and placed in it the first man, Adam (Gen. 2:8—15). God instructed Adam to cultivate and guard the Garden (Gen. 2:15) that is to enhance its already great fruitfulness and to protect it against the rest of the earth. Having also created the first woman and having joined her to Adam (Gen. 2:18—25), God commanded them and their descendants to multiply, to spread out beyond the boundaries of the Garden of Eden, and to fill, subdue, and have dominion over the whole earth and everything in it (Gen. 1:26, 28).

Both by endowing them with His image and by placing them in authority over the earth, God gave men and women superiority and priority over all other earthly creatures. The implication is that proper environmental stewardship seeks to harmonize, but that human need and responsibility is above that of all other creatures. Man is the vice-regent of God when it comes to creation. To “subdue” and “rule” is only given to mankind. It is as if humans have the status of royalty in the created order. Psalm 8 says this about man:

You have made him a little lower than heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands: you have put all things under his feet.

There is a world and life directive to man: have dominion over my creation.

Michael Bullmore, referred to in an earlier post on gw, emphasizes the good of all creation and man’s mastery over it to promote and preserve it. Of course, he spends much time on two key verses about man’s responsibility: Gen. 1: 26-28 & Gen. 2:15. He asks the rhetorical question: Man is clearly given supremacy but is it “dominion”? To Bullmore, believing in dominion ignores the responsibility to “cultivate and care for” creation [Gen. 2:15 NIV]. Thus, he disputes what he calls the “subjectivist perspective” idea of dominion.

He argues that the idea of “rule” and “subdue” does not carry the “strong forceful subjugation” long believed and practiced. Rule does not mean strong subjugation since all God’s creatures cannot be reduced to be useful as only man determines. Bullmore specifically says:

While the exercise of that authority [rule over] does include the freedom to use creation appropriately to sustain and nourish human life, man must not so exercise his authority so to be harmful for God’s intentions for all creation. In fact, he must sometimes exercise his authority to protect and preserve God’s creatures from human subjugation. [Emphasis added.]

Secular environmentalists reject the dominion vision as "anthropocentric" or "speciesist," and instead promote a "biocentric" alternative. But the alternative, however attractively humble it might sound, is really untenable. People, alone among creatures on earth, have both the rationality and the moral capacity to exercise stewardship, to be accountable for their choices, to take responsibility for caring not only for themselves but also for other creatures. Bullmore thus casts his lot with those who would say that in some circumstances nature is more important than man and nature needs to be protected from man. The conclusion reached by secular environmentalists and there sometimes unwitting supporters is for the state to take the initiative and impose a “biocentric” view of the environment that saves the earth. In the gw context there is the ongoing pressure for an international solution by embracing the global solution of the Kyoto Protocol.

Now it is true sin makes it difficult for man to exercise godly stewardship.
But to reject human stewardship by individuals in favor of an unaccountable state [or international body] “protecting the environment” is no stewardship at all. Biocentrism is no alternative to selfish anthropocentrism. What the Scriptures actually posit is a Theo centrism: a vision of care of the earth with God and his perfect moral law at the center and human beings acting as His accountable stewards. God does not need government to protect what is His and, as we have repeatedly seen, governments become their own gods.

Biocentrism has at its core pantheism and government control. While there is a role for government in the world, it is not to develop environmental policy of how to use creation. Rather, it is to create a legal framework that holds people responsible and accountable for harm they may cause to others [Rom 13: 1-7]. This is a crucial Christian understanding of government: God has ordained government to do justice by punishing those who do wrong and praising those who do right [Rom. 13:1—4; 1 Pet. 2:13—14]. The Biblical position on the environment is not government taking control of the mandate given to man. Freedom, the expression of the image of God, may be abused by sin and, therefore, needs restricting [1 Pet. 2:16]; but governmental power, necessary to subdue sin and reduce its harm is exercised by sinful humans, who may also
abuse it [Ps. 94:20; 1 Sam. 8].

These principles indicate that a Biblically sound environmental stewardship is one in which it is recognized that man., created in God’s image, is fully responsible for dominion and control of creation. Scripture mandates that man, the image bearer of God, has the right and duty to subdue and control the creation. Stewardship is accomplished by responsible humans acting virtuously and in harmony with God’s perfect moral law. The role of carefully limited Biblical government is to ensure sinful behavior is punished, not to decide how to subdue and control the creation. Man, appointed by God, has dominion over God’s creation and he is responsible to God alone. Environmentalism of any other kind is an exercise of rebellion and lawlessness whereby man proclaims himself to be God [2 Thess. 2: 3-4].