Anthropocentric Environmentalism

I was recently having a conversation with a person regarding environmentalism and how within Christianity there has been a move towards being 'good stewards' of the environment in the past few decades. I also had a conversation with a person from one of the leading Christian aid agencies, who was saying that when they are campaigning on the issue of global warming they always emphasize the human cost of environmental damage. For example how the people in the poorest parts of the world, such as Bangladesh or Niger, have suffered the most due to adverse weather conditions cause by climate change. There is a great human cost to environmental damage and this is tragic.

However, I'd also suggest that theologically there is something askew if the only way we can raise awareness of environmental damage is by highlighting the human cost of it. It defines our relationship with the planet in an anthropocentric way, it places humanity solely at the centre of the creation and unfortunately this has been the cause of environmental destruction for centuries.

I do think that humanity has a unique place within creation, i think that the image of God is reflected in humanity. But I also think that the image of God is reflected in the environment, in the complexity of the city and in the beauty of the countryside. Environmental concern cannot be a means to an end - even if that ends is incredibly noble - it must be for the sake of the created order alone, because the created order is a gift to us from God.

On the flip side, I had a conversation with a person from a new age perspective about HIV/AIDS in South Africa and her response shocked me. She viewed HIV/AIDS as 'necessary birth control', there was no compassion for humanity within her response. It was as if God was fully recognized in the creation but not in humanity; you cannot hug a tree and not hug a person dying of an AIDS related illness.

Technorati Tags: Ben Edson, Current affairs, environmentalism

Comments

[Mark]

I was listening the other day to an interview (on Radio 5) with Dr Iain Stewart, the guy behind the Earth: The Power of the Planet... He argued that people talk too much about the "fragile planet" he said rather we should recognise that the planet is robust yet a humanity sustaining ecosystem is fragile... he argues that should we so damage the environment to the point that human life is not sustainable, the Planet will continue to exist, it won't blow up or cease to be just because we become extinct... just as other planets exist without the ability to sustain life. What he wasn't doing was advocating a laisez faire attitude toward the planet, rather a reorientation of perspective... the planet is not fragile, it is robust... the conditions needed for life as we know it to exist are fragile.