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.

Authority or responsibility

Authority is closely connected to responsibility. Many are familiar with the idea that those who have authority are responsible for the outcome. They take the rap for the outcome, and also the glory. Some modernists would wish to disassociate these. All authority and no responsibility. This just allows us to feed our pride without needing to consider or reap the consequences of our actions.

I think it is helpful to think of the situation in the reverse. What we have responsibility for we need authority for. People are given responsibilities for persons and property, and if we are to realise good outcomes we need the authority to action things.

This places the focus back on duty and not power. The parent, the politician, the manager are responsible for people or property placed under their care. They are seeking raise godly children, or manage interactions between citizens, or develop skilled workers and maximise productivity. Thus the focus is on the responsibility. Authority is required to do this well. But the obedience of the children isn't arbitrary (though it may seem so to them), it is because there is real authority, and the real authority is there because the father has been given the responsibility by God to raise up godly children.

People still make their own choices, and outcomes are not guaranteed, or determined; nevertheless, the job is nigh impossible without authority.

When we are under authority we should behave appropriately: respect, honour and usually obedience. This is important because such people will be held accountable for their actions. When we have authority we are to use it based on the realisation that we will be held accountable for those under our authority.

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.

Economic future

I was asked my thoughts on this article by Neville Bennett which is his thoughts an the near economic future.

Governments will wrestle with mounting debt-servicing costs and be forced to make severe budget cuts, especially in welfare and education. High structural unemployment will endure in the West and will fall heavily on youth, the unskilled and even mature workers.

High unemployment, higher taxes, foreclosures, and very tight credit will encourage a new frugality to consumers.

The share of consumption in GDP will decline. Savings should increase but savers will find yields low, especially in the deflation prone Japan and the USA.

Bennett goes on to describe the recovery as "L" shaped, which is not a description of the shape of the graph, but shorthand for long. I agree with his assessment, though it is not clear whether he thinks we still on a downward trajectory, or are near the bottom but will be a long time rising? I suspect the former and I concur, we still have a long way to fall.

Interestingly he describes shocking behaviour of consumers, partly due to excessive credit,

More accurately, personal liabilities in 2008 [in the US] exceeded 130% of personal income.

New Zealand was worse: Household debt increased six times in dollar terms between 1990 and 2008 to a massive 160% of disposable income.

Debt servicing took 15% of disposable income. The magnitude of debt provoked few concerns until about 2008.

Banks were anxious to provide 100% mortgages, and consumers often enjoyed the “wealth effect” of rising home values and stock investments.

Consumers used their homes like an ATM: taking loans for home improvements, cars, furnishings and even holidays.

Personal savings virtually disappeared. They were about 10% of income in the 1970’s but by 2008, Kiwis spent $1.13 for every dollar earned. Americans behaved similarly.

Overall I think the article reasonable. It appears to specify what he thinks will happen, not what he thinks should. Comments on actions governments and individuals should take would improve the article.

He is likely correct about unemployment rising, and being worse for the unskilled who are frequently the youth, this will be exacerbated by the high minimum wage.

There are some areas where I disagree, or at least would clarify his comments.

I am not certain his reasoning for the rapid rise out of recession in the 1980s is correct.

The US could roar out of some recessions, like that of 1981-2, because the baby-boomers were young (many in their 20’s) and high earners with heavy spending on homes, furnishing and cars.

Consumer spending rose 7.2% in 1982. The demographics are different now with many people scrimping in retirement. Personal debt is US$124,000 per household and that takes a lot of paying off, especially as house values have plunged and stock markets been volatile.

There may be some truth to this, but one has to wonder how accurate the data is over the last 30 years. Not to mention the theory that the bursting stock market bubble was offset by the technology bubble, which was offset by the property bubble, which is the last reasonable bubble. Thus the current doesn't lack solutions, rather the compounding of the recessions of the last few decades. There may have been no true recovery, debt funded spending just hid the true situation.

Bennett mentions tax increases leading to frugality,

High unemployment, higher taxes, foreclosures, and very tight credit will encourage a new frugality to consumers.

It is not clear whether he predicts this or advocates this. I am not too certain that these things will effect a change in behaviour, profligacy being a moral problem. But higher taxes should be avoided; they will do little to address the spendthrift problem but will prolong recovery and exacerbate unemployment. Tax cuts with even greater reduction in government spending would be far better long term for employment the economy.

A minor quibble, he talks about bi-inflation

Bi-inflation. Rising prices for commodities and gold, deflation in much of the economy.

So he is using the term inflation to describe prices, whereas it strictly means monetary supply. Will the monetary supply increase (inflation) or decrease (deflation). Price changes are reflective of the amount of money in circulation all other things being equal (which they may not be). It appears that Bennett thinks there will be deflation of the monetary supply with the prices of most things decreasing but some exceptions. I think the government will try and inflate, the question is will they be able to? I hope there is deflation. Prices will go generally go down as will incomes, but not debts! Some prices may rise because of decreased or unchanged supply combined with increased demand.

Worth a read, food for thought.

Children stealing from the future?

A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald mentioned a suggestion by the Anglican Church in Australia for people to have less children. As the article is brief I will quote it in full.

The Anglican Church wants Australians to have fewer children and has urged the federal government to scrap the baby bonus and cut immigration levels.

The General Synod of the Anglican Church has issued a warning that current rates of population growth are unsustainable and potentially out of step with church doctrine - including the eighth commandment "thou shall not steal", Fairfax newspapers say.

In a significant intervention, the Anglican Public Affairs Commission has also warned concerned Christians that remaining silent "is little different from supporting further overpopulation and ecological degradation".

"Out of care for the whole Creation, particularly the poorest of humanity and the life forms who cannot speak for themselves, it is not responsible to stand by and remain silent," a discussion paper by the commission warns.

"Unless we take account of the needs of future life on Earth, there is a case that we break the eighth commandment - 'Thou shall not steal'."

The discussion paper, prepared in March, claims that federal government financial incentives encouraging childbirth should be scrapped and replaced with improved support for parents, such as leave.

Leaving aside the question of the government creating incentives or disincentives to have children, this statement suggests a lack of biblical thinking on behalf of the General Synod. Of course this is not necessarily reflective of all Australian Anglicans. Representatives are more than capable of giving opinions that are not representative. It may be reasonable to ascribe the above statements to a few seated on the Synod.

The eighth commandment as mentioned is, "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20). Theft relates to property, and that property owned by another. Theft does not apply to any future potential, real or imagined. Theft also reflects a disregard for another, an attempt to have what is owned by another because of one's own selfish desires. Having children is not stealing anything from anyone directly. And it generally is not selfish. It may be in one's self-interest, though it frequently requires selflessness.

Further, God commands that humans populate the earth, he commanded both Adam and Eve at the beginning of the world, and Noah when the human population was reduced to 8 because of the deluge. Of interest is that associated with the command to fill the earth is the command to subdue the earth.

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.” (Genesis 1)

We are to manage the earth to maximise its potential. This suggests that it is not population that causes ecological degradation but incorrect or absent stewardship. People that manage the earth well can sustain very large populations. Garden's and farms are far more productive and can sustain higher populations of flora and fauna than jungles and forests. There are many examples of arid land becoming productive through the ingenuity and hard toil of those who work it. And there are examples of few people causing destruction through abuse. Degradation is not a population problem, though improvement can be limited by not enough people.

Further, children are frequently identified in Scripture as a blessing. Jesus himself had much time for children, rebuked those who saw them as a nuisance, and had strong warnings for those who would lead them into sin. Children are a good, not an evil.