Close Window

May 15, 2001 Greg Zuschlag: "Environmental Stewardship and the Ecology of Genesis" "There is no such thing as a centrist position in our political Society" J. Hightower Why is "Stewardship" Problematic? Stewardship is a very slippery word. It means different things in different contexts. The contemporary use of the word is analogous to the actual road on which discourse moves. On the right side of the Stewardship road there are groups like the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship (ICES), which is a multi-religious "environmental" organization. It is actually an anti-environmental organization that is in danger of falling into the (what I think Greg referred to as the) "ditch of domination." These folks are afraid of looking beyond dogma, beyond the scriptures for answers to "who we are" and "how we ought to live in the world." Most organizations fall in the middle of the Stewardship road. The National Religious Partnership for the Environment, the World Council of Churches, the Coalition On the Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL), and many others fall in the middle of the road. They disconnect social and environmental ecology; they criticize notions like "kinship" and/or "web of life" that fall to the right of the road. The left of the road represents thinkers that support a notion of "the web of life" and/or "kinship." Most of these folks are willing to leave traditions/scriptures behind because they believe that they are too far gone. The problem is that if you move to far to the left of the road (like T. Berry and Brian Swimme) you face the danger of falling into the ditch of subordinationloosing individuality/uniqueness of existence/radical otherness to the whole (ie. Claiming that humans represent the evolutionary process becoming conscious of itself is not only anthropocentric, but it is ultimate subjectivity because it gives rise to the idea that "I am the consciousness of the universe;" in doing so, radical otherness is lost or subsumed by the self). What is needed is to ground notions like "kinship" and "web of life" within traditions, within scriptures. What is needed is a new road, a new way of thinking about Christianity and the Environment. Why is Stewardship so Popular? Stewardship is appealing because it is religious, it is historical, it is cross-cultural, it is ethical, and it is only a few shades different from the Capitalist Market norm. It has the feeling of going beyond the status quo while remaining loyal to the status quo. It is a notion that is realistic and within our grasp. It also provides people with a sense of activism that the "web of life" mentality doesnt seemingly offer. In other words, it allows one to say, "I have been a good steward of Gods creation today." Anthropocentrism and Instrumentalism viz. a viz. Stewardship Stewardship does not break free from viewing the rest of the natural world anthropocentrically and instrumentally. It still assumes that "nature" is an amalgamation of resources and that the human is somehow different from nature. In Buberian language, "it-ness" is associated with nature, and "thou-ness" with humans. Most theologians that support some notion of stewardship do not address these issues. Biblical Theology and Stewardship: Exegesis or Eisegesis? Stewardship tends to be biblically supported via a process of looking at one piece of scripture at the exclusion of the rest, or via eisegesis. Usually Genesis 1:26-28 is used to support an ethic of stewardship: "and let them rule over all the earth, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature." Nowhere in this passage is a Hebrew equivalent of "stewardship" found. In fact, the only reference in the OT to stewardship is in the economic sense (Joseph is steward over Phaross estate). Stewards in the ancient world were a retainer class which worked for the wealthy to keep the economic system (the status quo) in order. "Steward" in the NT was actually a pejorative name. Doctrinal Theology viz. a viz. Stewardship Stewardship has claimed its ethical ground (over and against things like kinship) using imago dei language found in Gen. 1:26-28. This has lead to a sort of humanism based on the inalienable rights and dignity of human beings. How then, do we move to some sort of understanding of humans as part of the world? One can't just apply the notion of imago dei to the rest of the world. Neither "Rights," nor "imago dei" language provide us with an earth-ethic. When we try to move from humans as imago dei, to an earth-ethic we will either: a) have to support stewardship (ie maintain anthropocentric and instrumental views of nature) or b) fall into the trap of glossing over the fact that life must die in order for other life to live (ie. if all life and life-forms have inalienable rights, how can one life be justified over another?). Historical-Contemporary Uses of Stewardship In the 17th Century (in Europe) stewarship gets used to refer to the conservation and proper use of natural resources. Nature in the 17th Century is "vegetative" (not organismic like in ancient thinking, and not quite mechanistic as in Enlightenment thinking, but like a human in a constant vegetative state needing constant attention). In 20th Century America, the concept of stewardship becomes important during the dustbowl. "Soil Stewardship Sundays" were initiated to help restore barren soils. Interestingly, this was an idea formulated by the government and "sold" to the church (it is not sui generous). This was (basically) an economic usage of the word. People would give their time, and other "resources," as a gift to aid soil restoration. By 1960s, Lynn White and Rachael Carson are writing and the First Earth Day is held by 1970. Stewardship was taken out of the late-20th Century (economic) context, and used to fit the environmental crisis. Instead of talents, money, and gifts that were needed to sustain the church, "stewardship" wan now to refer to the environment. The concept is still an economic one; it deals with maintaining and managing the resources/things of the earth. Ecology Who cares for who biophysically speaking? The notion of stewardship calls humans to care for creation. The problem is that it ignores the fact that nature cares for us and (for the most part) cares for natures-self. We are dependent upon nature; biophysically speaking, we add nothing to the planet. The Ecology of Genesis C. Palmer sees the problem with stewardship is that it is founded on faulty notions of the identity of God, humans, and non-humans. "Steward" (as something that describes humans) implies that God is absent/transcendent and has left humans in place to manage Gods property. The motivation to conserve or manage the earth properly is fear that God will not be pleased with our work as Stewards. The rest of creation ends up being "things" owned by God and managed by humans. J. Cohen, a scholar of ancient history, researched the Gen. 1:26-28 passages to see how they have been used by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. In earlier interpretations of these passages, the passage is all about sex: reproducing and fertility are coupled with self-control and sexual prudence. This interpretation reigns until the 17th Century. T. Hiebert looks closely at both the "P" and "J" accounts of creation in Genesis. Stewardship is linked mostly with the "P" text (Gen. 1:26-28) where humans are seen as the imago dei, as the crown of creation. In fact, most proponents of Stewardship use the P account at the exclusion of the older, J account. In the J account of creation, humans are of the soil, linked to the soil, and called by God to tend the soil. Humans are seen as farmers in the "J" account. (This is the account in which Wendell Berrys work is grounded). M. G. Brett wants to draw on the good parts of both P and J accounts of creation. P provides us with the imago dei which is a very relational concept of human-divine relations. Likewise, P is non-hierarchical and non-violent when looked at in relation to other Ancient Near East creation stories (like that of Tiamat). P was written during a time when people were enslaved. The domination language of P is there to empower people so that they will not be relegated to slavery/subordination. The "J" account then sees humans as "of" the soil (as are the rest of the animals, life on the earth). Brett looks at the playfulness between the two accounts. For instance in the P account, humans are told to rule over the earth and subdue it; in the J account, humans are tricked by one of the "creepy things" that we are suppose to rule over. These things suggest that the accounts should be taken together and neither should be the sole basis for an environmental ethic. If not Stewarship, then what? Greg provided four different realms/possibilities for discussing "who we are" and "how we ought to live" viz. a viz. the rest of the world. The following are four different approaches to any given situation; that is, they should be used together to examine "the environmental crisis." 1. Oikoskinship (The earth as household, making all life within kin). 2. Poliscitizenship. (political relationship; Humans as plane citizens of the world). 3. Agoramarketplace/economy. (Proper exchange between humans, other animals, and the earth that reflect our partnership with all other living things). 4. Super-Natural RealmEkklesia, Basileia, Koinonia, Com-pan-ionship (to break bread with). This is a realm for those that need a way of thinking about a whole that is greater than "what is". Something that relates us to a larger entity (whether that be god or some sort of process)."

Close Window