The contemporary religious voice within the politics of climate change is one that stands in stark contrast to the one that has traditionally been associated with theological approaches to ecology. The regularity of religious leaders urging society to “address environmental degradation”, in response to political discussions on the issue of climate change reflects a stark shift in religious engagements with the environment. Crucially, there is a trend towards considering ecological-living as no longer a lifestyle preference but, a matter of justice. In short, it is no longer a choice; it has become a matter of right and wrong. Recently Archbishop Rowan Williams commented:
'For the Church of the 21st Century, good ecology is not an optional extra but a matter of justice. It is therefore central to what it means to be a Christian.'
In this respect, I am not arguing that there has not traditionally been individuals within the church who have been deeply concerned with the environment, Saint Francis of Assisi being a notable religious environmentalist. My argument is that contemporary Christianity is placing ecology at the centre of the Christian faith, and this is a very different stance to the traditional theology of nature.
Lynn White's paper "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis", published in 1967 is a landmark in the historical debate of this discussion. The significance of the essay is reflected by the number of responses that it evoked from medieval theologians. White not only discusses the nature of the Ecological Crisis, significantly 40 years ago, but that Christianity bears a great deal of responsibility for the way the earth has been mistreated. White rebukes Christianity for its preoccupation with and focus upon human salvation and eschatology and its notion of humanity having "dominion" over the rest of creation.
According to White, fundamental to the ecological crisis is the relationship between ones beliefs and ecology: “What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny-that is, by religion.” Whilst on certain levels this may seem somewhat obvious, White insightfully articulates an unholy relationship between religion and ecology, considering Western secularism to have inherited a great deal of how it engages with the environment from Christian theology. He comments: “We continue today to live, as we have lived for about 1700 years, very largely in a context of Christian axioms.” In short, White accuses Christian ideology of being responsible for influencing secular ideology in this unecologically-friendly way.
White argues that when Christianity inherited the story of creation from Judaism, in ideological terms, it also inherited a unique and detrimental understanding of man's relationship with nature. According to White, Christianity has inherited and subsequently transmitted to Western culture this sense of domination over nature:
“Man named all the animals, thus establishing his dominance over them. God planned all of this explicitly for man's benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man's purposes. And, although man's body is made of clay, he is not simply part of nature: he is made in God's image.”
White argues that this domination over nature evident in Judaeo-Christian theology has developed an ideology that does not give due respect and consideration to the environment.
Offering a religious response to White's critique of Christianity's influence upon Western ideology, is Christian ecologist Richard T. Wright's article "Responsibility for the Ecological Crisis" (1970). Wright agrees that Western ideology inherited aspects of Christian theology however he contests the nature of this relationship as described by White. Wright argues that “Western man's utilitarian approach to nature in recent history is … the result of … a species making use of its environment in the same sense that other species of animals, like the beaver, manipulate their environment.” Wright deems man's manipulation of the environment to be something that is natural to the human. It is simply a natural animal characteristic to make use of one's environment and man expresses it in a similar fashion to the rest of nature.
This said, Wright equally asserts that “There is no denying the biblical reference to man having dominion over the rest of nature.” However he deems this to be a relationship where man appreciates and adorns nature. In support of this assertion he turns to the Psalms commenting that “[t]hey point to a beautiful and awe inspiring natural world which has value because it shows God's wisdom and power in its existence and functioning.”
Wright provides a basis to support reasons other than theological doctrine to be responsible for the manipulation of nature in contemporary society. Further, he provides an account of how the Christian ideology supports the appreciation and stewardship, as opposed to the desecration, of nature. However, I consider White's critique to still stand. Indeed, Louis Dupré elucidates why I make this assertion:
