Articulating a Christian response to environmentalism is perhaps one of the most challenging theological tasks in our day, primarily because environmentalism blindsided an unprepared church. The result is that many Christians have adopted different elements of environmentalist belief. In fact, many of the same Christians who recognize the hostility of the mainstream media to the truth when it comes to issues such as abortion and "family values" treat the same sources as authoritative on environmental matters.

As a result, although you will be able to find quite a bit of Christian environmental material today, unless you know where to look, you will become thoroughly frustrated trying to find material that goes deeper. With very few exceptions one being Calvin E. Beisner, World magazine another – the same problem exists in Reformed circles as in the broader Christian community. All claims need to be questioned from global warming to species extinction, ozone depletion to fear of nuclear energy, risks associated with chemical use to landfill waste disposal.

This is the first point – the need to question all claims of crises – that Christians need to be prepared to address if they want to arrive at a Biblical perspective on environmental questions. But it takes courage to question these claims because it strikes at the heart of the lead­ing expression of the western world's fa­vorite modern religion – pantheism. The anti-scientific, anti-rational attack on U.S. president George Bush following his decision to abandon the Kyoto Accord on global warming shows how dangerous it can be to go up against the modern environmentalist ethic.

Population control⤒🔗

One of the most common characteristics of the environmentalist message is the hostility towards technology, eco­nomic growth and industry. Environmentalists also tend to be strong advocates of population control. It is probably safe to say that among this magazine's readers, there are many who are sympathetic to environmentalism but very few who would support the idea of population control. Nobody has, to date, however, demonstrated a way to accomplish the anti-growth environmentalist agenda without resorting to population control. Environmentalists who make the connection are at least being intellectually honest in terms of their philosophical, or theological, premises; Christians who deny the connection aren't.

Environmental questions are essentially economic questions. Environmentalists make this clear from their perspective, proposing economic solutions to environmental problems. This makes sense, also from a Christian perspective. The Bible rarely deals directly with what we would call environmental issues. There are a few exhortations about our treatment of animals (Exodus 9:3; 20:10 & 17; Deuteron­omy 14:4ff: Psalm 8:6-9), and a few other statements (cf. Exodus 20:24; Leviticus 26:3-4; Psalm 104:10ff; Proverbs 14:4; Matthew 10:29). The Bible doesn't seem to treat environmental issues as of immense import in and of themselves. From Genesis and the Dominion Mandate onwards, its focus seems to be on the environment as it relates to man's responsibility to obey God's law The issue of how environmental problems develop and how they are solved, therefore, in broader categories, comes down to the on-going battle between private property rights and free enterprise vs. political and economic centralism/socialism.

Better than the alternative←⤒🔗

Unfortunately, many Christians who generally recognize that Biblical truth teaches – in terms of broad principles – private property rights and free enterprise over against socialism/statism seem to have become increasingly embarrassed at defending those principles in the face of allegations of environmental disaster at the hands of free individuals. There is no need for such an attitude: free enterprise does not usher in utopia, but compared with the effects of statism, such as in former Soviet countries, it leaves no doubt as to which social structure is superior from an environmental perspective.

Humanism and greed may well be leading to a growing number of environ­mental and other problems in today's society, but most Christian environmental analysis does not bother to also consider the ongoing effects in today's western society of the redemptive activity of by-gone Christians seeking to live the dominion mandate. Wealth is good; conveniences are wonderful. The problems with wealth come from its abuse, but wealth also buys better health, better food, more protective shelter, etc. We are still seeing innovations, technological development and other dynamics in society that are constructive and can probably, therefore, be tied to the ap­plication, either currently or historically, of the Biblical dominion mandate.

Unfortunately, many Christians today have such a negative predisposition towards modern western civilization that they can't see any good. This attitude also makes them vulnerable to the analy­sis of environmentalist movement. Certainly, some Dispensationalist Christian leaders have used the claims of environ­mental catastrophe to buttress their eschatological views.

Another important point to remember regarding environmental matters is the resilience vs. fragility issue. One of the non-negotiable religious tenets of environmentalism is that the world, includ­ing all its individual "eco-systems," is extremely fragile and, therefore, sensitive to destructive upheaval at the slightest interference in natural processes. Such a view is, of course, absurd to anybody who believes that the global flood recorded in Genesis was a literal historic event.

The Biblical response to this environmentalist faith claim is that the world and all that is a part of it is both fragile and resilient but that its resilience supercedes the fragility because the world is held together and overseen by a God who is both personal and almighty (cf. Psalm 148, Colossians 1:16-17). Take human skin as an example. Even when it is cut or scratched, it heals. But you can pierce it with a blade or a bul­let to the complete undoing of the person whose skin you have penetrated. Skin, therefore, is both resilient to harm and fragile, but more resilient than vulnerable in the normal course of events. This is also the case with man's interaction with the rest of creation.

Many Christians like to call themselves environmentalists because the term is in vogue, although they emphasize that they do not advocate radical environmentalism. It is important to note, though, that philosophically, there is no consequential difference between radical environmentalism and the mainstream environmentalist movement. Christians should, therefore, be very careful about the terms they use when identifying their views regarding this front-line "culture war."