Taking every thought captive for obedience to Christ (2 Corinthians 10.5)

Vision
The World
For increasing numbers of scientists, the term “Anthropocene” is becoming the preferred way of thinking about our world and times. Here clearly is an example of scientists, lifting themselves up to the next great height of knowledge, only to find a band of theologians, who have been sitting there for years (Robert Jastrow).

Like the Pleistocene and other so-called geologic eras, Anthropocene is intended to describe the era of earth’s history in which human beings are not merely a primary feature of the landscape, but are shaping that landscape, and everything in it, and not always or even primarily in positive ways.

According to Katrina Forrester, writing in the May 12, 2016 edition of The Nation, adopting this term has serious consequences (“The Anthropocene Truism”). She explains, “Because the term assigns responsibility for the transformation of nature to the human race, it has become as much a call to collective responsibility as the name of a geological period.” Geologists and other earth scientists are not sure when the Anthropocene began. Some suggest a recent starting-date, corresponding to the first atomic explosion, while others want to push it back a few centuries, or even a few millennia.

The debate over whether or not to adopt this term officially is heating up, especially in view of the fact that later this year an international commission will actually decide “whether enough evidence exists (and, if so, whether it would be scientifically useful) to designate the Anthropocene as an official geological epoch.”

Ms. Forrester reviews Jedediah Purdy’s book, After Nature, in which he argues, “the term describes a world in which the division between politics (a human thing) and the natural world (something separate from us) has collapsed. Nature is no longer purely natural, thanks in no small part to us.” Purdy argues that this has long been the case, and that the idea of Anthropocene goes back much further than is being discussed today.

He shows that, in fact, nature and politics have always been involved and entwined, and so the question is not really whether this has begun to or should be the case today, but rather what form such engagement should take.

Purdy describes two opposing camps, those who would make nature serve human needs – the Providential camp – and those who seek to preserve nature for its aesthetic and ecological value – the Romantics. Purdy suggests that the true Anthropocene is “a landscape that contains, and is shaped by, clashing visions of nature, its political uses, and its legal embodiment.” He appeals to law as the best way to maintain a balance between these competing visions, thus bringing politics into the service of environment, for the benefit of both.

Ms. Forrester concludes, “The real challenge of the Anthropocene is not to face up to the fact: Purdy’s book does that for us. Instead, it’s to create a politics that confronts both environmental problems and those of inequality, exclusion, and capitalism”. She suggests that we need to work toward establishing “the kind of mass democracy” that can bring both camps together for consensus and constructive action. This sounds like an appeal to some form of international law which thus far in our present ecological crisis, hasn’t worked all that well.

Human laws tend to be conditioned by circumstance. This is especially true of international laws, which are typically drafted in the form of treaties. If a nation – such as China or India – doesn’t find the terms of the proposed treaty agreeable, it can simply opt out. Thus, while other nations, such as the United States, bind themselves to certain regulations and sanctions, others simply “prefer not”, as Bartleby the Scrivener might have put it. This creates bad feelings between nations, which sometimes lead to economic sanctions, which can intensify bad feelings, and which can result in hostilities.

From the perspective of a Biblical cosmogony, the Anthropocene has been with us from the beginning of time. Indeed, a world in which human beings play a major role in shaping its fecundity and determining its use is precisely what God intended from the beginning (Gen. 1.26-28; Gen. 2.15; Ps. 8). With the fall into sin, human transgression certainly had adverse effects on the environment, leaving it to groan and travail under the weight of humankind’s rebellion against God (Gen. 3; Rom. 8.20-22). But God, Who loves the cosmos so much that He sent His Son for its redemption (Jn. 3.16), gave His people a Law which contains statutes for the conservation and proper use of the creation, and which celebrates the beauty and goodness of the world, both for the enjoyment and edification of humankind and the praise of the glory of His grace.

Science is again catching up with Scripture, it seems, by recognizing what Christians have known all along: Human beings are made for creation, and creation is made for human beings. Both serve the purposes of God in benefiting the world and glorifying Him (Ps. 119.89-91; Ps. 19.1-4).

If the nations hope to forge some law to rein in humankind’s exploitative tendencies in the Anthropocene, and encourage only those practices that will maximize both human benefit and terrestrial fecundity, then we will need a Law above human law for such an arrangement to work.

For reflection
1.  Meditate on Genesis 1.26-28, Genesis 2.15, Psalm 8, and Romans 8.20-22. What seems to be God’s intention for human beings and the earth?

2.  What are the practical implications of this for individual believers? That is, how can we, each in our own place and sphere, demonstrate the love and care God exercises for His creation?

3.  This is obviously a subject that is being widely discussed around the world, and which is moving policy-makers to draft laws and treaties that affect everyone. What does your church teach concerning this subject?

Next steps: How can you begin to be more conscientious and consistent in fulfilling your role with respect to God’s creation? Talk with some of your fellow believers about this question.

T. M. Moore

How should Christians understand the creation? What is our responsibility with respect to its care and flourishing? For “reading” and “listening” to what it can teach us about God? These and other questions are addressed in T. M.’s book, Consider the Lilies: A Plea for Creational Theology. Order your copy by clicking here.

We’re happy to provide The Week and other online resources at no charge. If this ministry is helpful to you, please consider joining those who support our work financially. It’s easy to give to The Fellowship of Ailbe, and all gifts are, of course, tax-deductible. You can click here to donate online through credit card or PayPal, or send your gift to The Fellowship of Ailbe, 19 Tyler Dr., Essex Junction, VT 05452.