by evolutionary process. God, by definition,ncan do anything He pleases, asnBlaise Pascal pointed out three centuriesnago. In Matthew 13:31-32, Christngives us the parable of the mustardnseed: “The Kingdom of Heaven is likena mustard seed which a man took andnsowed in his field. It is the smallest ofnall seeds, but when it has grown it is thenbiggest of shrubs and becomes a tree,nso that the birds of the air can comenand shelter in its branches.” Who saysnthat God cannot think evolutionally?nYet Oelschlaeger assures us that then”prevailing Judeo-Ghristian” conceptionnof the universe has been “intellectuallyndiscredited.” Really? If so, bynwhom? Gertainly not by Max Oelschlaeger,nwho appears to be unawarenthat modern science, theoretical physicsnespecially, so far from having confoundednthe possibility of supernaturalnreality has substantiated the likelihoodnof it. What Oelschlaeger means is thatnthe acceptability of Christian truth hasnbeen denied by a broad sector of thencontemporary world. But that ofncourse is another matter entirely.nA second development of whichnOelschlaeger seems to be ignorant isnChristianity’s own version of postmodernismn(see James Hitchcock’s reviewnLIBERAL ARTSnIT’S THE TROUT,nTHE TEACHERSnNOTnScientists last summer said toxic chemicalsnwere robbing children of their abilitynto learn and think. The Chicago Tribunenquoted Dr. John Vallentyne, thenCanadian chairman of the Great LakesnScience Advisory Board, as saying,n”The evidence suggests that thesenchemicals may be whittling away theninnate potential within our species tonlearn and think.” The science boardnconcluded that children from mothersnwho consumed contaminated LakenMichigan fish had short-term memorynand poorer verbal skills than “normal’-‘nyoungsters.n32/CHRONlCLESnin this issue oi After Ideology by DavidnWalsh). Christian postmodernists arenunhappy with the modernist world fornmany of the same reasons the DeepnEcologists are; they agree with themnand with Mircea Eliade that Homonreligiosus has been supplanted bynHomo economicus, si species whosenproblems with such concepts as thensacred versus the profane are notorious.nThe difference is that DavidnWalsh’s postmodernists find their inspirationnin the civilized MediterraneannBasin of the first centuries A.D.,nnot, like Max Oelschlaeger’s, in thenMesopotamian wilderness of two hundrednthousand B.G.E.nAn orthodox Catholic and fellowtravelernof the environmentalist movementnmyself, I have no trouble agreeingnwith the proposition that Christiansnhave historically been guilty of undervaluingnnature in ways they assume arenconsistent with their faith. They havenbeen guilty of undervaluing many othernthings as well; yet the fault lies not inntheir religion but in the human fallibilitynthat can lead them into misinterpretationnof it. There is nothing anywherenin the Bible that enjoins us to benanything but conscientious stewards ofnthe land and its creatures, and as fornwilderness John the Baptist lived in itnand Christ Himself withdrew to it tonfast and pray. True, the supernaturalnprinciple is exalted in the New Testamentnabove the natural one; but again,nwhy do moderns tend to assume that ifna thing cannot be accepted as being ofnthe highest value, it must therefore bentreated as worthless? (Even so, Christntaught the resurrection of the body andnwent so far as to provide a demonstrationnof it.) The destruction of nature isnpart of what Oelschlaeger himself acknowledgesnas “the modern project”;nnow that we are experiencing the effectsnof that project on the naturalnworld, even people who believe thatnthey are supernatural beings destinednfor eternal life are beginning to reconsidernthe question of the rigbt relationshipnbetween man and nature.nMax Oelschlaeger, in The Idea ofnWilderness, works hard to appropriatenAldo Leopold as an early Deep Ecologist,nbut in this he is notably unsuccessful.nLeopold (1886-1948) made his.ncareer in the U.S. Forest Service,nwhere his was a stentorian voice onnbehalf of wilderness preservation. Hennnhas been called the father of wildlifenmanagement, and he was also thenauthor of several books (including AnSand County Almanac, today regardednas a classic) as well as of numerousnessays. The River of the Mother of Godnis a selection from these, published andnunpublished; while many are of annessentially technical rather than a philosophicnor literary nature, nearly all ofnthem make good reading. Leopold, angraduate of the Lawrenceville Schoolnand of Yale University, was a highlyncivilized man who wrote with greatnclarity and elegance, and though anvisionary he was not insane. Hengrasped firmly the extent to which,n”Plants, animals, men, and soil are ancommunity of interdependent parts,nan organism,” deplored what he callednthe “iron-heel mentality” typical of thenMachine Age, and argued, “All historynshows this: that civilization is not thenprogressive elaboration of a single idea,nbut the successive dominance of anseries of ideas. . . . Engineering isnclearly the dominant idea of the industrialnage. What I have here callednecology is perhaps one of the contendersnfor a new order.”n”A thing is right,” Leopold stated innwhat became the maxim for his famousn”land ethic,” “when it tends to preserventhe integrity, stability, and beautynof the biotic community. It is wrongnwhen it tends otherwise.” Wildernessnand economics he thought to be “mutuallynexclusive,” and for that reasonnunreconcilable. But he believed alsonthat, “[the] extension of ethics … isnactually a process in ecologicalnevolution. . . . The first ethics dealtnwith the relationship between individuals.n. . . Later accretions dealtnwith the relationship between the individualnand society.” While recognizingnthat, “There is as yet no ethic dealingnwith man’s relationship to land and tonthe non-human animals and plantsnwhich grow upon it,” Leopold suggestednthat the extension of ethical principlesnto this third element of bumannrelational experience was “an ecologicalnpossibility.” In the meantime, henadvised, “the reaction of land to occupancyndetermines the nature and durationnof civilization.”nIf you are so much as thinking ofnconverting to ecology, the writings ofnAldo Leopold should be the object ofnyour earliest inquiries. <§>n