The forests - what would God do?

The Anglican Church in Tasmania Search

a healthy church...transformingLIFE

Home About Contact us News Issues Parishes Prayer Calendar Youth Resources

August 2005

The forests - what would God do?

Over the past 30 years Tasmania's forests have been a political flashpoint, leading to a highly polarised and emotive debate that is damaging to the local community. Christians have responded to this issue with various positions, some of which are here examined by Stephen Carnaby.

Preserve God's Creation

This broadly holds that since God fashioned creation, it is sacred and must be protected. Not to do so is to sin. In short, 'God is a Greenie.' We need to learn to live in harmony with, rather than care for, the earth. This view appears to have its basis in Green spirituality.

Subdue the Earth

This holds that God has given humanity the task of subduing the earth and having dominion over it, using any or all of its resources in whatever way might advance human well-being, regardless of the environment. This may lead to Christianity's being seen as responsible for environmental degradation. However, it is difficult to find Christians in the Australian debate holding this position.

Stewardship

The most appropriate theological position is that of stewardship. This concept, based on Genesis 1-2, and then worked out through the rest of scripture, is that humans alone are made in God's image, have a special relationship with God, and are charged with being God's stewards of the earth, to rule, fill, subdue (Gen. 1), work and take care of it (Gen. 2). Therefore, as humans, we have both the blessing of using and enjoying the goodness of God's creation and its fruits (thus changing it), and also the responsibility of caring for it as stewards, rather than as owners or creators.

However, the range of understandings of what stewardship is and how it should work out in practice is enormous. Ian Hore-Lacy writes, 'most of us would probably take the middle position, but find it hard to agree on just where that lies!' [1]

Some wish to stress the demands of stewardship: the land belongs to God (Ex. 19:5); allow the land to rest every seventh year (Lev. 25:4-7). Others point out the environmental implications of passages such as Deut. 8:7-10, where God imagines mining and the provision of minerals as a gift from God.)

Another issue that needs to be considered is that good stewardship may look different in different situations - it is not possible to devise a blanket approach that will always come to similar conclusions.

No response

The most common Christian response to the forests debate has been silence. Some may feel that it is not a 'Christian' issue (falsely dividing the world into 'secular' and 'sacred'). Some may see that the issue could have a Christian response, but is much less important than our 'main focus' of evangelism or pastoral care; or of lower order than 'moral' issues, such as abortion; or 'social justice' issues, such as poverty. (Therefore, we don't have the time). Others may not feel able, or not well enough informed, to comment in the highly charged political environment. Some of these reasons may have merit, yet for Tasmanians, this is a very significant social/political issue.

What should we do?

This is not a debate for all Christians to focus on, but it is good that some have a strong interest in this area (as others might, for example, concentrate on medical ethics). If Christians or the church enter into this debate I would suggest three important goals.

Change the nature of the debate (e.g. avoid polarising and emotive language, intimidation or illegal activities.) As Christians, model how to disagree well.
Influence for good stewardship. Acknowledge that we can use the trees as a God-given resource and blessing, but be accountable to God as the owner of the trees. Recognise the place of aesthetics and beauty in the forests as well as economics. At a personal level (and with church resources), live as a steward rather than an owner.

Look to a wider perspective. Take into account how we affect local communities, future generations, and other countries (which may be poorer, with less ability to say 'no' to degrading environmental practices if our companies are forced to move offshore).

The beauty of this earth and Tasmania's forests in particular, show forth the glory of God and can in a limited way point people to the Creator. As in all things, a Christian's entry into the political debate is not just about changing a system or practice or law. It is ultimately about seeking that all people might bow before God. Tasmania's forestry debate contains a good opportunity to point through the forests to God and His Son.

This is a short summary of an M.A. research paper. For the longer version, please contact Stephen Carnaby

[1] Hore-Lacy, I., 'A theological perspective on environmental issues in the context of the sustainable development ethic', Zadok Paper S60 & St Mark's Economists Conference (28 March 1992), http://home.vicnet.net.au/~zadok/theolenv.htm, cited 1 June 2005

(C) 2005 Dit Briggs. Used with permission

	The Anglican Church in Tasmania Search
	a healthy church...transformingLIFE
	Home About Contact us News Issues Parishes Prayer Calendar Youth Resources

				August 2005

		The forests - what would God do? Over the past 30 years Tasmania's forests have been a political flashpoint, leading to a highly polarised and emotive debate that is damaging to the local community. Christians have responded to this issue with various positions, some of which are here examined by Stephen Carnaby. Preserve God's Creation This broadly holds that since God fashioned creation, it is sacred and must be protected. Not to do so is to sin. In short, 'God is a Greenie.' We need to learn to live in harmony with, rather than care for, the earth. This view appears to have its basis in Green spirituality. Subdue the Earth This holds that God has given humanity the task of subduing the earth and having dominion over it, using any or all of its resources in whatever way might advance human well-being, regardless of the environment. This may lead to Christianity's being seen as responsible for environmental degradation. However, it is difficult to find Christians in the Australian debate holding this position. Stewardship The most appropriate theological position is that of stewardship. This concept, based on Genesis 1-2, and then worked out through the rest of scripture, is that humans alone are made in God's image, have a special relationship with God, and are charged with being God's stewards of the earth, to rule, fill, subdue (Gen. 1), work and take care of it (Gen. 2). Therefore, as humans, we have both the blessing of using and enjoying the goodness of God's creation and its fruits (thus changing it), and also the responsibility of caring for it as stewards, rather than as owners or creators. However, the range of understandings of what stewardship is and how it should work out in practice is enormous. Ian Hore-Lacy writes, 'most of us would probably take the middle position, but find it hard to agree on just where that lies!' [1] Some wish to stress the demands of stewardship: the land belongs to God (Ex. 19:5); allow the land to rest every seventh year (Lev. 25:4-7). Others point out the environmental implications of passages such as Deut. 8:7-10, where God imagines mining and the provision of minerals as a gift from God.) Another issue that needs to be considered is that good stewardship may look different in different situations - it is not possible to devise a blanket approach that will always come to similar conclusions. No response The most common Christian response to the forests debate has been silence. Some may feel that it is not a 'Christian' issue (falsely dividing the world into 'secular' and 'sacred'). Some may see that the issue could have a Christian response, but is much less important than our 'main focus' of evangelism or pastoral care; or of lower order than 'moral' issues, such as abortion; or 'social justice' issues, such as poverty. (Therefore, we don't have the time). Others may not feel able, or not well enough informed, to comment in the highly charged political environment. Some of these reasons may have merit, yet for Tasmanians, this is a very significant social/political issue. What should we do? This is not a debate for all Christians to focus on, but it is good that some have a strong interest in this area (as others might, for example, concentrate on medical ethics). If Christians or the church enter into this debate I would suggest three important goals. Change the nature of the debate (e.g. avoid polarising and emotive language, intimidation or illegal activities.) As Christians, model how to disagree well. Influence for good stewardship. Acknowledge that we can use the trees as a God-given resource and blessing, but be accountable to God as the owner of the trees. Recognise the place of aesthetics and beauty in the forests as well as economics. At a personal level (and with church resources), live as a steward rather than an owner. Look to a wider perspective. Take into account how we affect local communities, future generations, and other countries (which may be poorer, with less ability to say 'no' to degrading environmental practices if our companies are forced to move offshore). The beauty of this earth and Tasmania's forests in particular, show forth the glory of God and can in a limited way point people to the Creator. As in all things, a Christian's entry into the political debate is not just about changing a system or practice or law. It is ultimately about seeking that all people might bow before God. Tasmania's forestry debate contains a good opportunity to point through the forests to God and His Son. This is a short summary of an M.A. research paper. For the longer version, please contact Stephen Carnaby [1] Hore-Lacy, I., 'A theological perspective on environmental issues in the context of the sustainable development ethic', Zadok Paper S60 & St Mark's Economists Conference (28 March 1992), http://home.vicnet.net.au/~zadok/theolenv.htm, cited 1 June 2005		(C) 2005 Dit Briggs. Used with permission