Book review: Caring for Creation

A book review by bethyada on Caring for Creation written by Dick Tripp.

I was given a copy of Caring for Creation by Avery Bartlett Books for review. Caring for Creation is book #23 in Dick Tripp's series Exploring Faith Today. I have not read any other books in the series; the titles cover a range of issues on Christian theology and Christian living. Tripp, now retired, worked in the Anglican clergy. Judging by various comments in the text and his appeal for conversion in the conclusion, it appears that his beliefs are reasonably orthodox and he has a strong desire for men to come to follow Christ. He runs the website Exploring Christianity which I have not reviewed.

Caring for Creation is Tripp's adjuration for Christians to both pay attention to environmental issues and address them. The book is roughly divided into 3 sections; he starts with giving an overview of the recent environmental movement and Christian involvement over the centuries; followed by the main section—an overview on how he sees the Bible addressing environmental issues throughout its pages; and then an appeal to the church to act. There is an extensive Scripture index.

Some minor niggles: The style could be improved upon. Topical flow was hesitant at times. An extensive number of quotes were included. There were a substantial number of assertions. The footnoting was inadequate (quote references included inline, and an appended reading list); several statements would have benefited from reference and this lack makes it difficult to critique. Nevertheless, these are relatively minor issues and it was a reasonably readable book. This is not my complaint.

What is commendable? Tripp rightly identifies that environmental issues are addressed by Scripture. The Christian worldview touches all of life: living, dying, art, politics, science, law, etc. Most issues are moral issues, thus it is important to know what the Lawgiver allows and proscribes. Our current concerns may seem modern but antiquarian biblical revelation is contemporary revelation. Quoting Bradley in the introduction,

Greening Christianity does not involve grafting it onto some alien philosophy but simply restoring its original character.

But, as they say, the devil is in the details.

Several current crises are noted in the opening chapter, all of which could demand a book in themselves. Tripp identifies: Climate change; Ozone loss; Waste; Water; Overfishing; Forests; Hunger and poverty; Animal and plant extinctions; Air pollution; Acid rain; Topsoil erosion; and Desertification. I concur with several of these, though it seems that some are not real issues, some are potential issues but may not be crises, and some do not seem to be primarily environmental. They are important because the rest of the books assumes them. But people who have sympathies for a pleasant earth are on both sides of these questions; to assume predominantly Politically Green conclusions as are commonly encountered is to beg the question.

What does he get right? He made several points that I think are correct. The vastness of the universe testifies to the majesty of God (p.74), we need to trust God daily (p.30), and it is God who ultimately provides for man and animals (p.76). The Christian doctrine of the Fall is the most reasonable explanation for our situation (p.87). Our actions cannot help but affect others (p.26), and local community action is often better than central governmental action (p.29). Activities may have unintended consequences, such as transferring a species to a new environment (p.24) (though this action may also be beneficial). People can exaggerate the suffering of creation (p.62). And in modern society, scientists have taken the place of priests and this (presumably philosophical materialism) has made us consumerists (p.32).

Unfortunately I think Tripp concedes too much to the environmental movement. Further, and of more concern, is much of his biblical reasoning for environmentalism.

Economic prosperity is frequently maligned as being ecologically damaging, yet often times it is not; it may be far less damaging to the environment, especially when comparative amounts of food is considered. Modern clean burning fuels produce far less soot and limit the requirement of wood for fuel.

Complaint is made about removing or damaging the resource base of the poor with regards to water, energy, food, and medicines (p.27); meaning streams, wood, gardens and plants. But how much better would the same poor be if these were replaced with clean water, cheap fuel, cheap food and effective medicines. Why is a farmer making small dams and ponds to ensure water for his crops deemed good, but a city building a large dam to ensure constant water supply for the residents bad? Sure, a government could be unfair in its distribution, but a subsistence upstream farmer could do the same by diverting water, using excess water, or polluting downstream water.

DDT is disparaged (p.35) yet the banning of this chemical must have been one of the worst decisions in the history of the modern environmental movement. It is by no means clear that DDT causes cancer or genetic damage. It may be considerably safer and cheaper than some alternatives. It is plausible that the banning of DDT has negatively impacted the fight against malaria and that the death rate is now higher than had we continued to use it. Ideas have consequences and bad ideas frequently have bad consequences.

Water and pesticides are only two examples of several, but these are important to get right as more than half of childhood deaths in the developing world are caused by infectious diseases; the biggest three being pneumonia, diarrhoea and malaria.

The larger concern is the questionable exegesis of Scripture in places. A couple of examples will suffice, though I had several concerns. On the prohibition of the tree of knowledge of good and evil Tripp writes (p.31),

When God set up humans in the Garden of Eden, though providing them with abundance, he did set limits on their use of available resources (Genesis 2:16,17).

I had not previously seen this interpretation ever proposed, though have encountered it since. That man should limit what he takes from the earth—regardless of the veracity of this proposal—just does not exist in this verse. The tree was a test of loyalty and faithfulness, it was the sole limitation for the man and woman, and it was not off bounds because of limited resources. Such an interpretation comes from prior opinions concerning appropriate use of the earth's resources. It may not be original with Tripp, but it is transparent eisegesis.

Later Tripp comments that the word “world” in John 3:16 is the Greek “kosmos” and that this means universe, not just the world of people (oikoumene). But this reasoning ultimately works against him as John also uses “kosmos” in 1 John 2:15,

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Context is important. Clearly the latter verse alludes to coveting and living for temporal things. This does not mean that Jesus only loves the people, but the scope of “kosmos” in John 3:16 needs to be expanded and defended. “World” has a semantic range. What is the semantic range of “kosmos,” and does “world” or “universe” better convey this? Tripp has several other word studies that may suffer from the same contextual problems, such as his suggestion that “work the earth” in Genesis 2:5 means “serve the earth” (p.81).

Contrasting Christianity with other worldviews on caring for creation, Tripp concludes with these words,

Christians have reasons that are more profound and satisfying as they are based on the truth of the God who really exists, humans as they are intended to be, and the world as it really is (p.144).

Which is very true. Which makes it deeply ironic that much of what Tripp presents in the book as the problems and solutions of current environmental issues are not that different from popular environmentalism; and the latter frequently subscribes to these false worldviews. True, Tripp's foundations differ profoundly, but one would therefore expect that the issues identified and solutions offered would frequently be divergent. Interestingly he quotes a study showing congregations that have the greatest commitment to biblical authority and inerrancy were the least concerned about ecology (p.43). It is difficult to know what “concern” means here, or what the issues were; but it is well worth contemplating that people with high regard for the Bible lack concern for the things that fill green secularists and pagans with fear .

Tripp is correct to identify Scripture as the foundation for Christian Ecology. I disagree with some of his text choices and several interpretations he offers. Despite Tripp's admirable concern for the lost, I cannot recommend Caring for Creation for people wishing to gain a better understanding of these issues.

Fish numbers increase in Gulf of Mexico

Isn't this interesting? For all the concern the oil spill would have on the environment, it seems the associated shutdown of fishing was significantly more beneficial for marine life than oil was harmful.

...ongoing research suggests the federal closure of the richest portion of the Gulf to all fishing through the spring and summer months resulted in dramatic increases in the abundance of numerous marine creatures, from shrimp to sharks.

...Data collected this year shows a marked departure from previous years.

Valentine’s research, which consists of trawl surveys in Mobile Bay, Mississippi Sound and around the barrier islands shows a roughly threefold increase in what the nets captured after the spill compared to before, in terms of both the weight of the catch and the number of animals caught. Valentine said it was possible seasonal factors played a role in the changes in the data, though he believed the lack of fishing was the key.

It may be difficult to untangle the variables and estimate the true contribution of altered fishing patterns. No mention was made of bacteria breaking down the oil and whether the oil acted as a food source for these organisms which had upstream beneficial effects; I don't even know if such a theory is viable.

What is interesting in the article is the incredulity of many interviewees. It seems the biosphere is more resilient than many give it credit, and appropriate stewardship of our resources—in this case fishing quotas—is what is required. This is not to say that the region was being over fished, we need data informing us what the maximal sustainable catch is.

Public or private environmental conservation?

I mentioned that government involvement (or oversight) in conservation can potentially be a hindrance. Roger Beattie re-established weka in an area they had previously disappeared from, but he was struggling to farm them for food because of their endangered status.

Beattie has brought back weka from the Chatham Islands since 1994, with Department of Conservation (DOC) consent, and has settled the birds in a predator-proof enclosure.

He now plans to tackle the rules that protect buff weka on the mainland. "It's a process and could take five years, but I am going to enjoy the challenge of speeding that up," he said.

DOC believes Beattie's proposal raises questions, and the department may need legal advice.

Buff weka disappeared from the South Island in the 1930s. However, a population was established on the Chatham Islands.

...Beattie is the country's biggest individual wild paua-quota holder and a paua-pearl industry advocate. He also harvests sea kelp from Akaroa Harbour and wants to commercialise the pest seaweed undaria.

Beattie believes conservation and business go hand-in-hand. He said if there was money to be made from an endangered species, it would never die out.

Beattie said DOC's control of bird species created a protracted permit process that strangled entrepreneurial enthusiasm.

I think Beattie's comments about conservation and business are on the mark. The qualifier being that commercial interests need to produce their product, not find it, sell it, and move on. Breeding endangered plants for ornaments or construction; or endangered animals for pets, pelts, or palate, is probably the quickest way to remove them from endangered status.

Global warming sceptics get it

Blair D at Avoca Valley Life alerted me to an article in the Christian Post: Christians Launch Campaign against Global Warming Hype.

While it may seem like everyone believes in global warming and the impending catastrophe it will bring, a group of conservative Christians countered that message Thursday by launching a national campaign to gather one million signatures for a statement that says Christians must not believe in all the hype about global warming.

They helpfully note a significant reason to be opposed to global warming political action (other than the fundamental reason: the theory is false):

Opponents of the popular global warming view say that until all scientists can agree that global warming is as severe as some claim and that it is mainly human-induced, they are against any policies that would raise energy costs because they would put the lives of millions in jeopardy based on uncertain or debatable scientific evidence.

The campaign is an American national endeavour called We Get It. They seek to get a million signatures to their declaration. While not open to myself due to location reasons, it is reasonable and there is nothing specifically I would oppose.

The We Get It! Declaration:

God Said It
God created everything. He made us in His own image, and commanded us to be fruitful and multiply and watch over His creation. Although separated from God by our sin, we are lovingly restored through Jesus Christ, and take responsibility for being good stewards.

We Get It
Our stewardship of creation must be based on Biblical principles and factual evidence. We face important environmental challenges, but must be cautious of claims that our planet is in peril from speculative dangers like man-made global warming.

They Need It
With billions suffering in poverty, environmental policies must not further oppress the world’s poor by denying them basic needs. Instead, we must help people fulfill their God-given potential as producers and stewards.

Let’s Do It
We will follow our Lord Jesus Christ and honor God as we use and share the principles of His Word to care for the poor and tend His creation.

While one may not necessarily subscribe to all their suggestions for individual action, the declaration is probably acceptable to most who are Christian and sceptical of the climate change polemic. So if any Christian citizens of the US read here from time to time you may wish to pay a visit, or even consider signing.

(Only do so of your own conviction, I would not sign something popular if I was dubious of it, and even some things I moderately approve of I am cautious to add my name to; but if you do so, could you note it in the comments, even anonymously?)