(including Christians) continue to rakernold chestnuts over the fire while prattlingrnabout being fruitful and multiplyingrnand subduing the earth. (St. Augustinern—who arguably did take arndisparaging view of nature, perhaps owingrnto his preconversion relationshipsrnwith its female element—understoodrnfruitfulncss and multiplication as referencesrnnot to human sexuality but ratherrnto manifestations of the Holy Spirit.)rnIn 1967, an article by Lynn White,rnJr., in Science popularized the claim thatrnenvironmentalists have since made theirrnprinciple indictment against Westernrncivilization: Christianity, as the world’srnmost anthropoccntric religion, is foremostlvrnresponsible for the ethos that hasrnlegitimized the degradation of naturernover the past several centuries. White’srnassertion was so superficially plausiblernthat it went unchallenged for nearly arndecade, even by Christians who thoughtrnthev knew when to keep their mouthsrnshut. {Didn’t they hear every Sundayrnabout man being made in the image ofrnGod to subdue the earth and establishrndominion over all its creatures?) By thernlate 70’s, however, they were beginningrnto recollect their faith as well as themselves,rnand in 1980 the Fellows of thernCalvin Center for Christian Scholarshiprnat Calvin College published Earthkeeping,rna confidently eloquent and learnedrnvolume asserting not just the compatibilityrnbetween Christianity and environmentalismrnbut the explicit centralityrnof nature to the Cood News of redemption.rnMore completely than any otherrnreligion, the authors implied, Christianityrnreconciles the apparent dualism ofrnmind and matter, man and nature, bodyrnand spirit, that has confounded humanrnunderstanding from the dawn of civilization.rnSo far from being anti-naturalist,rnChristianity property understood isrnnature’s best hope, proclaiming Christ’srnredemption of man with nature by thernCrucifixion and the coming of the Kingdomrnof Cod. ” [F] or the whole creationrnis waiting with eagerness for the childrenrnof Cod to be revealed. It was notrnfor its own purposes that creation hadrnfrustration imposed on it, but for thernpurposes of him who imposed it—withrnthe intention that the whole creation itselfrnmight be freed from its slavery torncorruption and brought into the samernglorious freedom as the children of God.rnWe arc well aware that the whole creation,rnuntil this time, has been groaningrnin labour pains” (Romans, 8:19-22,rnNew Jerusalem Bible).rnEarthkeeping in the ’90s: Stewardshiprnof Creation is an updated version of thernoriginal edition, including recent evidencernof the present ecological crisisrnand new interpretations of the gospel ofrncreation by Christian writers. Like IanrnBradley, the British author of God IsrnGreen, the contributors admit thatrnChristianity in the West has indeed emphasizedrnman’s intrinsic value over thatrnof the natural world, an imbalance theyrntrace to the influence of Greek thoughtrnon the development of Christian theology.rn(By contrast, the Eastern Churchrnhas traditionally recognized the participationrnof nature in the Redemption, asrndid Celtic Christianity, which developedrnnot from Rome but from the Easternrnbranch of the Church.) Both Earthkeepingrnand God Is Green provide compellingrntextual readings establishingrnbeyond cavil that the Old and the NewrnTestaments imply and express an understandingrnof nature as a glorious workrnof God whose value is independent ofrnits utility to man. A brilliant insight ofrnthe Calvin College team is expressed byrntheir assertion that man in the image ofrnGod signifies a function, not an attribute:rna consideration of what humansrnare shows t h a t . . . they are mostrnclosely linked with the rest of creation,rnand . . . they are most clearlyrnplaced above creation, all ofrnEden being made for them. Certainly,rnthen, one way to harmonizernthis apparent paradox is tornrecognize that it is only by virtuernof human separation from naturernthat they can serve, and that it isrnthe ability to be consciously a partrnof nature which enables them tornbe its legitimate master. Therngreat surprise (especially if werntend to think that the “image ofrnGod” in us is some sort of privilegedrntrait) is that in all that werndo we are to be servants: dominionrnis to be understood as stewardshiprn—that is how we imagernGod. The whole of biblical history,rnand even of church history,rncan be helpfully understood as arnlong lesson in how humans are tornuse their ability to manipulate,rndominate, and rule. We are accustomedrnto considering that storyrnmainly in connection with ourrnrelationship to God and to otherrnpeople, but a third dimension ofrnthat relationship concerns ourrnattitude toward “nature”—rnnon-human creation.rnThis final point was made half a centuryrnago by Aldo Leopold, the father ofrnmodern environmentalism, in almostrnexactly similar terms: he thought therndiscovery of the “third dimension” tornbe part of “evolution.”rnThe ease, once trouble has been takenrnto make it, is effectively unanswerable;rn”theoretically,” the wayrnbecomes clear for a rapprochementrnbetween antagonists in the Culture War.rnUnfortunately, in real life such thingsrnoften fail to occur, as the authors of thernGood Book well knew.rnIf “conservatives” have much invested,rnintellectually speaking, in antienvironmentalism,rnthey have even morernat stake in it materially. And, humanrnnature being what it is, they are not easilyrnpersuaded to part with their investment.rnAnti-environmentalists (I meanrnthe Christian, not the agnostic, ones)rnare people who know they have hold ofrna truth without wanting to push it anyrnfurther than they have been made to dornin the past: they are like Christ’s disciples,rnsincerely wishing to learn the law ofrnGod with respect to divorce—but notrnso far as the teaching that to marry a divorcedrnwoman is to commit adultery.rnEnvironmentalists, on the other hand,rnare searching for a truth that they finallyrndo not want to find and that they arerntherefore adept at not recognizing: oncernyou acknowledge that Christianity is arnbetter guide to man in his relationshiprnwith nature than Buddhism, Taoism,rnHinduism, or Marxism, you are facedrnwith the logical imperative of examiningrnits claims as a guide to human socialrnand sexual relationships as well. Also,rnenvironmentalism is increasingly a misanthropicrnmovement whose aim is asrnmuch (or more) the destruction of civilizationrnas it is the preservation ofrnthe wild—a return to prehistory thatrnamounts to damnation, thinly disguisedrnas salvation, of the human species forrnits arrogance and bigotry. Thoughrnstrictly possible “in theory,” mass conversionrnto Christianity through ecologicalrnenlightenment is probably not in therncards.rnNor, for related reasons, is conversionrnto capitalism. Martin Lewis’s GreenrnDelusions is a frank assessment of thernlUNE 1993/29rnrnrn