Some Thoughts on Scripture, Theology, and Climate

It doesn’t matter if the issue is economics, the environment, human sexuality, or liturgy, when we ask what the Bible says about a topic we need to asking the question of the Bible. We should not try to construct our preconceived notions out of biblical material.

For some, this is an obvious statement, but as I read theology texts and Christianesque articles on various issues from all angles, I consistently get frustrated with the authors’ well-meaning attempts at eisegesis. It is especially frustrating to someone, like me, who views Scripture as the final norm in all matters of life and faith to fight  through an attempt to contort the text to fit their perspective.

Theology and Climate Change

One recent example is a book on Systematic Theology and climate change. Recognizing that climate change is a big deal, and that I expect Pope Francis to affirm anthropogenic climate change in his forthcoming encyclical, I am still puzzling over the approach of this book.

Scripture affirms an earth-positive ethics. That is, an environmental ethics can be built that has strong support from Scripture. What Scripture doesn’t help us with is the particulars about the data that relates to climate change or what to do about it.

This is something we are going to have to watch for in the near future, as the forthcoming papal encyclical encourages growing concern for the environment. We need to be more concerned with the environment than we are. However, we also need to balance our method of response to environmental concerns so that we do not ignore our responsibility to care for the poor, advance medical technologies, and advocate for the life of the unborn.

In other words, not everything that comes under the mantle of environmentalism can be matched up with Christianity. This is true despite the fact that we can develop a thoroughgoing environmental ethics from Scripture.

More particularly, we cannot blindly jump onto a policy bandwagon when issues like climate change come into play, even if they are entirely human caused. There are elements in the platform of many climate policy advocacy groups that don’t match a Christian worldview. We need to navigate these waters very carefully.

Challenges for Contemporary Theologians

This is what makes trying to derive a theology of climate change from Scripture. The Bible doesn’t actually say anything about the specific nature of climate change. Therefore, any theology that deals specifically with climate change will have several layers of interpretation between the text and the theology.

There is nothing wrong with applying a biblical worldview to contemporary issues. In fact, I am an avid proponent of this. However, we must do so with care so that the issue does not overshadow the text. In other words, we cannot backfit a theological paradigm to our sense of justice.

Backfitting is exactly what some theologians are doing when they construct their paradigms. They build the foundation under the existing problem.

The answer to the problem, though, isn’t to stop talking about the problem. It’s to come at it the other direction. Scripture is sufficient for every question about doctrine and life. This doesn’t mean that there is a verse in Scripture to answer every question someone can ask. We shouldn’t try to make the Bible be any more exact than it is.

Instead, this means that Scripture has the information we need to construct a worldview that will allow us to receive and apply truth that comes from the world around us. God created the world in an orderly fashion, thus all truth is God’s truth.

The main idea, then, is that we need to be cautious when we claim something as a Christian position. If we do, then it really ought to be built on a carefully formulated framework derived from Scripture. After all, that is the revelation God gave us and by which we claim to judge all ideas.

Photo credit: Bible, by Adam Dimmick. Used by permission. http://ow.ly/OqNhh 

How Do Views of the Environment Develop?

I've spent the last few years studying Christian approaches to environmental ethics. In the coming months (not years) I will write my doctoral dissertation examining how theological perspectives control people's view of the environment.

In the hundreds of books, articles, newsletters, and blogs I've read, not to mention the hours of video and audio I've submerged myself in, there are some consistent themes in both religious and Christian approaches.

When developing perspectives on the environment everyone has to answer four basic questions:

1. What are the sources of authoritative information for my perspective?
2. Why does nature/creation have value?
3. What role do humans have in caring for nature/creation?
4. What is the end goal of nature/creation?

For religious approaches, particularly Christianity, these four questions relate to the doctrines of revelation, creation, anthropology, and eschatology. Non-religious approaches have to answer the same sorts of questions, though they will respond with different vocabulary.

The differing response to these four questions helps to explain how different people with access to the same data can come up with vastly different ethical conclusions. Most of the time we argue about the conclusions, when the deeper issue is how we get to those ethical conclusions.

My understanding of this reality--that these four questions frame environmental ethics--was driven home by my post last week at The Gospel Coalition. The post explained why Christians can and should participate in Earth Day activities.

Some of the comments on the post made it evident that the people so anxious to voice their opinions publicly hadn't bothered to read the post. However, many of their responses demonstrated particular answers to these four questions.

Responding to Four Key Questions

As an evangelical Christian, my governing source of authority is Scripture. This is consistent with sola Scriptura, one of the five central concerns of the Reformers. However, I also take into account relevant scientific data (experience), theological tradition, and reason. These three aspects complete the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. They all help to form my theology, which in the end must be judged by Scripture.

Creation has value because God created it and inasmuch as it is fulfilling its purpose to glorify God. This keeps me from seeing the created order as merely of instrumental value, waiting to be harvested by humans. It also keeps me from  ascribing intrinsic value to creation, which would indicate creation has worth apart from God and may stand in the place of God as worthy of worship. This is more dangerous. Instead, creation has a purpose and should be respected and aided in fulfilling that purpose.

Some environmentalists treat humans as if they are an alien species and a scourge on the earth. This is unbiblical. Instead, we ought to see humans are a unique part of creation with responsibility to steward it. Stewardship implies the responsibility to care for and tend as a gardener, but not to use wantonly. Ultimately God owns creation (as he created it) and we will be held accountable for how we use it.

Finally, my reading of eschatology from Scripture sees a renewal of all creation at the end of time. God will do a mighty work to redeem all of Creation from the curse. This encourages a positive view toward working to preserve creation now, though not in an effort for repristination. This position stands in opposition to some Christian eschatologies that anticipate a cataclysmic annihilation and subsequent recreation of earth. It also opposes an evolutionary worldview that anticipates things will go on as they are now for the foreseeable future.

Summing Up

In the end, despite the mixed response to my post (even among those who seemed to read it), I stand behind my promotion of participation in Earth Day celebrations. I have several reason why:

First, it really is important to rightly steward creation for the theological reasons I listed above. We will be held accountable for how we care for the created order, so we ought to do it well.

Second, participating in Earth Day activities is no more a pagan rite than is going to a football game, singing the national anthem, and madly cheering for your team. Some people at the football game are actually participating in worship of their team or their country. That does not mean that every spectator is. Many of the folks at Earth Day events are secularists who would reject Gaia worship as foolishness, just like a Christian.

Third, some object to environmentalism because many environmental initiatives use centralized government planning and impinge on a free market. This is largely because free market advocates have abandoned the environment. The free market only works when people are internally, morally regulated. Big government is more necessary when people lack self control. This means that free market advocates (as I am) are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by rejecting environmental concern.

Fourth, events like Earth Day are usually filled with people that need the gospel. This should draw a faithful Christian like a light draws a moth. Seriously: People in community who are working together. If that isn't a great place to start a gospel conversation then there is no such thing.

People should act according to their conscience, illuminated by Scripture. However, I think reason should drive Christians toward more participation in common cause activities like Earth Day instead of fewer.

A Defense of Nuclear Power

In the decade or so that I worked in nuclear power, I never found a comprehensive apologetic for nuclear power that was published in the marketplace. All of the arguments were available piecemeal or in a more unified manner from people inside the nuclear power guild, but none from someone who didn’t have a clearly vested interest in keeping nuclear plants running.

 Michael H. Fox is an emeritus professor in the Department of Environmental and Radiological and Health Sciences at Colorado State University. Here is an individual who is outside of the commercial and nuclear power world who has access to the best science about the most concerning aspects of the risk of nuclear––radiation and cancer.

 Fox’s conclusion is that compared to imminent risk of climate changes, the risks of nuclear power are worth it. He spends nearly three hundred pages making his case by considering the basic arguments for and against nuclear power, as well as the case for and against other forms of non-fossil energy.

 The beauty of this volume is that it is written at a level that can serve as an introduction, but it also ramps quickly into the explanations for the more technologically adept. With the clear structure of each chapter, I was able to skim past those explanations that I am familiar with based on my experience as an operator and instructor. By the end of each chapter, however, the progressive development of each explanation had me reading carefully to follow his explanations. Even regarding the topics that I am less familiar with––such as the mechanism of cancer development in cells––Fox’s explanations were sufficient for me to understand the more complex aspects based on his earlier explanations.

 This volume is, therefore, both a suitable introduction and a valuable reference on the topic of nuclear power.

Summary 

The book is divided into three nearly equal parts. The first part deals with Fox’s explanation of the global warming and the contribution of Carbon Dioxide from coal and natural gas. He also explains the limitations of solar power and wind power. Fox is positive toward the benefits of renewable sources of energy. However, unlike many of the rabid proponents, he is realistic about the limitations in terms of capacity and footprint required, and he recognizes the ongoing need for baseline energy generation that fossil or nuclear will provide. Thus the future is in nuclear power, if real changes are to be made to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

 The second part is a discussion of radiation and its biological effects. This is the section that plays to Fox’s strength, as he explains some basic physics, then digs quickly in to a realistic analysis of the dangers of radiation. He doesn’t hide the real risk, but he also doesn’t overplay it. The reality, as Fox explains, is that any radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer, but the amount of additional exposure due to nuclear power is negligible compared with naturally occurring background.

 This is the most significant argument against nuclear power and Fox handles it well. However, the scientifically ignorant will continue to persist in their argument that any risk is unacceptable. For some reason this argument is powerful against nuclear power when it isn’t for other concerns. The miniscule risk increase of cancer from living near a nuclear plant, even using the conservative (i.e., inflated) estimates required by law, pales in comparison to having a speed limit over 15 MPH.

 The third part focuses on the risks of nuclear power. Fox deals with concerns about nuclear waste, which have been overblown by opponents. He deals with the real and tragic history of the three significant accidents in the history of nuclear power. He is fair about the consequences, but also notes the real learning that has taken place and points toward the attempts by anti-nuclear groups to grossly misrepresent the consequences. Then he deals with the issue of Uranium mining, also dealing with the failings in early nuclear power to deal appropriately with the risks of pollution. That damage was avoidable and is being avoided in properly conducted mining enterprises now. Finally, Fox concludes with a chapter debunking in summary the five most significant myths used to argue against nuclear power. He does this by accepting the truth in the claims and then showing why the arguments aren’t realistic or persuasive.

Conclusion

 Fox writes well and he is honest in his assessment of risks. In other words, he presents the reality of risks on all sides, without overstating his case. I would have thoroughly enjoyed this book simply because of the robust integrity Fox demonstrates, without having to agree with him. As it turns out, I agreed with the substance of Fox’s arguments, as well. He is realistic and helpful in how he argues. He is looking for solutions to problems instead of trying to manipulate emotions and control people’s lives through excessive regulation. There are points that I disagree with Fox, typically on the political implications of his arguments, but overall the case is well made and reasonable.

 If the modus operandi of environmentalists is followed, where only people that have PhD’s in climatology have a right to speak about climate change, then Fox’s  book will have amazing convincing power. Notably, the majority of anti-nuclear advocates speak from outside of the pool of people that have expertise in the area.  Unfortunately, well-reasoned arguments like that of Fox are much less likely to gain headlines than “Fukushima is leaking, we’re all going to die and the government doesn’t care.” Indeed, that is largely the nature of a recent book which includes the Union of Concerned Scientists among its authors.

 If you have questions about nuclear power, buy this book and read it. If you are a proponent of nuclear power, buy this book and cite it in your arguments. This is, hands down, the best one stop reference on the subject I have encountered.

Why We Need Nuclear Power: The Environmental Case

$31.46

By Michael H. Fox

Buy on Amazon

Note: A gratis copy of this book was provided by the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

A Christian Environmental Ethics - Part Four

This is Part Four of a series arguing toward a Christian environmental ethics. In the previous posts in this series we have examined the three aspects of the biblical narrative that point toward a comprehensive approach to human stewardship of creation. Those three aspects are Creation, Fall, and Redemption.

---

God created everything good, but it wasn’t in its final state. The vision of God was always to have humans populate the earth, develop technologies and build cities in the garden. However, Adam sinned, and God cursed the earth to remind humans that there is something wrong. Ever since then, humans have been pushing back against the disorder of the curse and struggling to overcome the wilderness.  When Christ came, he worked at alleviating the effects of the curse around him. Ultimately, his death on the cross made possible the final restoration of all things, which will come at some point in the future. In the meanwhile, since we are still on earth, we should be working to reverse the effects of the curse like Jesus did. We should be preaching the gospel verbally and demonstrating the implications of the gospel practically. We should be helping the weak, serving one another, and working as good stewards to use creation wisely. We do these things because we will be called to give an account of our work when Christ returns.

Some practical applications:

1.   Consume less – Americans are guilty of a lot of waste. We buy too much stuff we don’t need and throw it out. Excess consumption is bad stewardship of the environment and it is bad stewardship of financial resources that could be directed toward gospel activities.

2.   Simplify – One of the reasons why we consume so much is that we are trying to save time or do too much. Simplifying life can have benefits on a number of levels, including reducing the resources we use.

3.   Pick up trash – Simple activities that improve the aesthetics around us, like putting trash where it should be and keeping it from where it shouldn’t be, are good ways to be good stewards of the earth. When we work to directly improve the environment around us, we are showing some of the implications of the gospel, where the signs of the curse are wiped away.

Generally, we need to think close and move out. If we make small decisions about things we can directly control with the intent to be a good stewards of resources, we can do more than worrying about macro problems we can’t conquer. The larger problems will be reduced when the smaller problems are tackled.

To apply the three part paradigm to this: We should seek to conduct ourselves as good stewards, using the available resources wisely and cultivating the earth well. We should seek to do so in the character of Christ, which in this case means by pursuing actions that counteract the effects of the curse. We should have the goal of glorifying God by demonstrating the nature of the gospel through our actions.

Some things we don’t have to do:

1.   Stop having kids – God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. It may be the only command that we’ve faithfully obeyed. Contrary to popular myth, the problem isn’t a lack of space or resources but the allocation and availability of them. People are producers, not just consumers. So we should be encouraged by having more of them.

2.   Stop all technological progress and development – Biodiversity is a good thing and we ought to take it into account when we are looking at developments and technology. However, we don’t need to stop all technological progress and development because we don’t know the answer to every question that could ever possibly be asked. We are called to be good stewards, not infallible prophets.

3.   Pretend everything is a disaster – There is certainly room for us to be better stewards of our resources, but that doesn’t require abandoning the things that have made the improvements in medicine, electronics, and education possible. Hopefulness is something that distinguishes non-Christian environmentalism from other forms. We should be hopeful that things can improve and live for God's glory instead of fear of an apocalyptic demise.

The bottom line is that an environmental ethic that loses sight of the whole picture of stewardship of creation and obedience to God is a bad ethic. As Christians, we ought to consider how our actions impact the environment, especially through our use of resources. However, we should not pursue the “ecological good” without considering the other goods that may be impacted.

A Christian Environmental Ethics - Part Three

This post is Part Three of a series on Christian environmental ethics. Part One emphasized the goodness of creation and the unique stewardship responsibility of humans within the created order. Part Two outlined the impact of sin on the world, particularly through the cursing of creation.

All of creation was good, as God described. However, because of Adam’s sin, God cursed creation to remind humans of the impact of their sin and point toward their need for a redeemer. Additionally, humans have, on many occasions, continued to sin by being poor stewards of creation, which can be seen in some of the pollution and many of the human-caused ecological disasters in the world.

In Scripture, Romans 8 points toward the final redemption of all things, when the curse will be lifted. This is both a present and future reality. In other words, redemption has a right-now aspect and a not-yet aspect. As Paul write in 1 Corinthians 13:12,

“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

Redemption is the work of Christ in the world. Even from the beginning, Christ has been deeply involved in every aspect of creation.

He [God the Father] has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.  And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Col 1:13–20)

Christ created all things. He holds all things together. He will reconcile all things to himself, making peace by the blood of his cross.

We can see Christ’s work of redemption and reconciliation in his life. The vast majority of Christ’s miracles demonstrate a pushing back of the curse. The only two possible exceptions are the withering of the fig tree and the changing of water to wine at the wedding at Cana, but both of those can be explained as still demonstrating a positive influence over the created order.

The lesson we can pull from this is that we should be working right now to combat the effects of the curse. This includes such things as healing people, helping the poor, and minimizing pollution. Good stewardship includes working for a healthier ecosystem.

Revelation provides a picture of what the New Heavens and New Earth will look like:

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.  He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” (Rev 21:1–4)

Here are two things to note from this text:

1.   History is moving from the garden to a city. This means that human development and population of the earth is expected. Untouched wilderness may be a good, and may be something we can enjoy, but it isn't the goal for all of creation.

2.   The final restoration of the created order––the removal of the curse––is the work of God and not the work of humans. It is something God has planned from the beginning.

Drawing these concepts together, we can see that the ultimate work of restoring the environment will be done supernaturally by God. However, just as Christ worked to reverse the effects of the curse on the earth, so should we. This will include finding ways to be environmentally friendly. Being environmentally friendly, in many cases, is a part of whole-life stewardship.

A Christian Environmental Ethics - Part Two

This is Part Two of a series, arguing toward a Christian environmental ethics. You can read the first part here, which discusses Creation as the start of a paradigm for a Christian approach to ecology.

------------------------------------

When God created the world, everything started off well. God describes the sum of his creation as very good. Adam and Eve had the job of subduing and ruling over the created order. But, if you’ve been around church much in your life, you know that the story doesn’t stop there. In the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had everything they needed, but Adam chose to sin.

The snake gets Eve to question God’s command. She eats the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam eats the fruit, even though he knew he wasn’t supposed to. And sin comes into the world through human action.

The serpent is cursed to crawl on the ground and eat dust. We get the first expectation of a redeemer in Gen 3:15. Childbirth becomes hard for women. But there is some more information in Genesis 3 about the effects of human sin:

And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
    and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
    ‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
    in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
    and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face
    you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
    for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
    and to dust you shall return.” (Gen 3:17–19)

 There are two ideas that will help us understand the effects of the Fall in this passage:

1.   The ground is cursed – The ESV says, “because of you.” The KJV says, “for thy sake.” The two phrases mean almost the same thing, but slightly different. Clearly the cursing of the ground is because of Adam’s action, but it is also for Adam’s benefit.
2.   Work becomes hard – Adam still has the responsibility to cultivate and keep the earth, but it will become hard. The good creation will now resist the attempts of humans to improve it.

So, because of the Adam’s sin, not only did spiritual death come into the world, but the ground itself was cursed. It was cursed to help communicate the reality of human sinfulness to humans, to point out that something is wrong with the world. Romans 8 helps us understand this:

 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Rom 8:19–23)

We should recognize that things are not the way they ought to be in the world. Creation itself has been “subjected to futility” because of Adam’s sin and will only be set free from that when heaven and earth are restored. In the meanwhile, the frustrate creation reminds us that things are not the way they are supposed to be.

This is the stage that best describes where we are in the history of the world. Although redemption has begun through Christ’s work, it hasn’t come to bear on the created order in a holistic way. We are living with the effects of the sin of Adam and Eve and with the effects of other human beings as well. Not all human impact on the created order is sinful, but some of it is.

During this time that we are living, while we are waiting for the restoration of all things, we should live in order to steward the creation well. This was God’s vocation for Adam and he never rescinded it. However, just like the manager of a company, we will have to give an account for our stewardship.  Creation belongs to God, he has merely entrusted us with it. We should be working to improve it and to push back the effects of the Fall.

In the next part of this series, I will cover the third phase of God’s metanarrative: Redemption. This is God’s work to lift the curse, both by providing a way of salvation for those that believe and by removing the effects of sin from the Creation.

A Christian Environmental Ethics - Part One

Environmental ethics is a hot topic in the world, since concerns over climate change have led to arguments, protests and physical violence. The issue is as much economic as it is ecological, and there is an element of political power-seeking from both sides of the debate. As is typical, a Christian environmental ethics does not line up with many voices in the contemporary debate.

This is not a discussion of climate change, capitalism, the Keystone pipeline, fracking, coal-ash spills, or any particular issue. First, these are all extremely divisive and tend to distract from meaningful argument about the principals of environmental ethics. Second, I am more concerned to present a biblical approach to the environment, which will shape the beliefs behind particular decision.

The basic paradigm for unpacking a Christian Environmental Ethics has three parts: (1) Creation; (2) Fall; (3) Redemption. This is often simply a biblical theology, but it can also be used to describe a basic approach to our attitude toward the creation.

This post is Part One in a series, which will cover the understanding of Creation for an ethics of environment.

I.           Creation

The first thing to understand is that God created everything good. In the Genesis account of creation in Genesis 1, God made everything out of nothing in six days. Six times he described what he created as good. After he created Adam and Eve, he described the whole of his created order very good.

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. (Gen 1:31)

There are a few things that we can learn from this:

1.   God created everything – Everything that exists came into existence because God made it, regardless of the timeline you accept for creation.

2.   As the Creator, God has certain rights over his Creation – It isn’t as if he made something and sold it. God spoke everything into existence, he ultimately has ownership over it all.

3.   Everything God created was good – God didn’t declare everything to be good. God saw that everything was good. In other words, the created order has a goodness due to its nature and right relationship to God, not due to a special declaration.

In the Genesis account of creation, we also learn that man was made in God’s image:

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. (Gen 1:27)

There are several things that the image of God can mean. Theologians usually describe the image of God as one or more of the following: (1) Functional likeness to God; (2) Relational likeness to God; (3) Substantive likeness to God.

For this lesson, the key here is to look at the functional likeness to God. We are like God in that we have the function of sub-creators. He is the Creator and we continue his creative actions. This is part of the reason he created humans in his image.

Immediately after he spoke Adam and Eve into existence, he gave them dominion over the created order and told them to subdue it:

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen 1:28)

Then, in the more detailed account of creation in the next chapter, we see God give Adam a particular charge to develop the garden of Eden. This is not a destructive domination, but it should be a just stewardship that brings the best out of the created order, much like a farmer works his fields.

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. (Gen 2:15)

Some translations render this as “till and dress” or “cultivate and keep.” There is an agricultural function for Adam (and later Eve) to take charge of the garden. The garden was not a place of absolute rest, but a place of work and worship. Humans were given stewardship of the earth:

The heavens are the Lord's heavens,
    but the earth he has given to the children of man. (Ps 115:16)

The picture we get in Genesis 1 and 2 is of humans given responsibility as stewards over creation. We are to have dominion over it, but always with a view that we are to give account for how we use and tend the created order.

---

Other Posts in this Series:

A Christian Environmental Ethics - Part One

A Christian Environmental Ethics - Part Two

A Christian Environmental Ethics - Part Three

A Christian Environmental Ethics - Part Four

Some Thoughts on Scripture, Theology, and Climate

How Do Views of the Environment Develop?