“Falsely Accused: Nature in the Judeo-Christian tradition and Aristotle’s influence”
Thomas J. Hoffman
St. Mary’s University
San Antonio, Texas
A Paper prepared for presentation
at the
Western Social Science Association’s Annual Convention
American Indian Studies Section
Albuquerque, New Mexico
April 16, 2009
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
“Falsely Accused: Nature in the Judeo-Christian tradition and Aristotle’s influence”
Thomas J. Hoffman
Abstract: In discussions of Western and Non-Western views of nature, a strict dichotomy is often drawn. Non-Western views are identified as indigenous, tribal views in which nature is seen as having its own integrity; in which there is no hierarchy, per se; and, in which, all peoples (winged, two-leggeds, four-leggeds, swimming, stone, etc…) live together and make contributions. Western are those European based, Judeo-Christian rooted, hierarchical views in which humans are on top, and all of nature exists for human benefit. A schizophrenic view of stewardship of nature, and nature conquered and enslaved to human needs seems to hold sway. In truth, the Judeo-Christian roots of the Western view have been falsely accused. Aristotle, from the Greeks (not Judeo-Christian), is one of the sources of the Western hierarchical, human domination view of nature. That being said, from the viewpoint of Traditional Ecological Knowledge, both the Aristotelian and Judeo-Christian perspectives still place humans in a superior position in relationship to nature. An additional approach to nature, based upon recent biblical exegesis, provides another alternative for the Judeo-Christian: a theology of partnership with nature. Aristotle, the Judeo-Christian, and Native American approaches to nature are explored here.
The stimulus for this paper was the notion that I have heard many times that the Judeo Christian tradition is responsible for the Western world’s exploitative approach towards nature. I’ve often puzzled over this for several reasons: one, the message I continually have received through religious services and literature that it is humanity’s duty to preserve nature and to be good “stewards”; further, I know that the Judeo part of the Judeo-Christian tradition is referring to a tribal people. What I know of tribal peoples seems to indicate that there is going to be a more place-oriented, kinship with nature approach. So I have been puzzled.
There is no question that the Judeo-Christian tradition has been held at least partially responsible for this attitude towards nature. This brief quotation from Vine Deloria’s The Metaphysics of Modern Existence[1] should demonstrate that:
The traditional Western view of plants and animals is best expressed by the ancient Hebrew psalmist who, centuries before Christ, described man as little lower than the angels…. The central theme of this concept of the human species as dominating nature and occupying a place in the universe next to the celestial beings was illustrated in the creation story in Genesis when God allowed Adam to name the animals. In the Hebrew tradition, knowing the name of another being placed that other being in one’s control and under one’s power. The earliest religious conception of the status of the human species, which has continuously endured in the West, thus separated our species from the other life-forms and asserted our superiority and mastery over them. (46-47)
About a year ago I was in the midst of teaching Aristotle’s Ethics to undergraduate students. It was in reviewing his work that it became clear to me that the original Judeo-Christian tradition had been falsely accused. Aristotle (and the other Greek philosophers) is the source of the hierarchical attitude towards nature which places humans above, and even separate from, nature. Truth be told, St. Paul, and others of the early Christians, were both Jews and followers of Greek philosophy, so the notions from the Greeks were merged very early into the mix of Christian conceptions of nature.
In preparation for this paper I learned some interesting things. Aristotle’s philosophy does place human beings at the pinnacle of creation, with animals, plants, and land all at their services. The Judeo-Christian scriptures can be shown to provide a mandate for humanity to be good stewards of the earth and its inhabitants. When I got to that point, I thought I would be done. However, in my research, I ran across an article[2] co-authored by Dan Wildcat which discusses Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). Now I know I have heard Dan discuss this before, but it never sunk in the way it did now. Basically, he points out that both the Aristotelian approach to nature and the stewardship approach are similar, insofar as humanity is still “separate” from nature. In one, humans exploit nature for their ends, in the other, humans ‘manage’ nature, so it will last (again for their ends).
Well, then, at this point, I figured why bother with the paper. If stewardship and exploitation end up in the same place, there really is nothing to bring to the table, to this dialogue with American Indian approaches to nature. Then, serendipitously, I ran across an article by a Lutheran theologian (Santmire, 2003) which moves the discussion further. He points out that scriptural exegesis shows that the Judeo-Christian tradition is actually calling us to something beyond stewardship. He discusses a theology of partnership with nature. This is not to claim that American Indian approaches to nature, and Judeo- Christian approaches are the same. That is certainly not the case. But this dialogue may help a little bit in the project that Deloria (1979) discussed at the end of the Metaphysics book when he wrote: “Today we seek to expand our knowledge of the world, and the signposts point to a reconciliation of the two approaches to experience.” (212-213)
Aristotle
Aristotle, in the Ethics[3], makes it very clear that humans are distinct from the other animals. He indicates that there is a hierarchy of being, and that humans are definitely on a much higher plane than other creatures. He points out that the goal of life is happiness, and that is attainable by only one of the animals – humans.
Happiness is the highest good: “To call happiness the highest good is a truism” (Thomson, 37). There are many beings on earth, but they are not all equal in capacity for Aristotle. There is actually a hierarchy:
The mere act of living is not peculiar to man – we find it even in the vegetable kingdom – and what we are looking for is something peculiar to him. We must therefore exclude from our definition the life that manifests itself in mere nurture and growth. A step higher should come the life that is confined to experiencing sensations. But that we see is shared by horses, cows, and the brute creation as a whole. We are left, then with a life concerning which we can make two statements. First it belongs to the rational part of man. Secondly, it finds expression in actions (Thomson, 38).
For Aristotle, there are four levels of being: the material (which is not mentioned in this citation) – [physical being, including mountains, and seas, the earth itself]; the vegetative – plants [which take in nutrition and grow]; the sentient – animals (‘horse, cows, and the brute creation’; and the rational which acts – human beings.
Humans are different from the other animals because they not only sense but can make choices as well. “The brutes do not share with man the power of deliberate choice, but like him they feel desire and passion “(Thomson, 83). Humans are able to able to participate in action: “…sensation is never the source of considered action, as may be seen from the fact that the lower animals have sensations, but exhibit no trace of such action” (Thomson, 172). Humans have a greater capacity than animals: “The life of the lower animals is defined as the capacity for sensation, of man as the capacity for sensation plus thought” (Thomson, 279).
For Aristotle, only humans are capable of achieving the highest goal in life. Animals are not capable of approaching the highest good – happiness:
This is indicated, too, by the fact that the other animals have no share in happiness, being completely deprived of such activity. For while the whole life of the gods is blessed, and that of men too in so far as some likeness of such activity belongs to them, none of the other animals is happy, since they in no way share in contemplation. Happiness extends, then, just so far as contemplation does, and those to whom contemplation more fully belongs are more truly happy, not as a mere concomitant but in virtue of the contemplation; for this is in itself precious. Happiness, therefore, must be some form of contemplation (Aristotle[4], Book 10, Section 8).
Thomson, in his comments on Aristotle, sums up the distinctions that Aristotle draws between humans and animals in this way:
Some of the differences between human beings and other animals are these: (1) Other animals have a Soul defined by Perception. They live by perception and appearance without reason. (2) They share with human beings nonrational desire but not rational desire. Hence they act voluntarily, but not on a decision. (3) They are not capable of happiness or of the virtues of character, since these require decision. (Thomson, 316-317).
In Aristotle, the earth, the plants, and the animals can only contribute to man’s well-being. Man can use them to support his quest for happiness.
The Judeo-Christian tradition and Stewardship
The Judeo-Christian tradition, prior to St. Paul, was not greatly influenced by Greek philosophy and Greek notions of nature. It is appropriate to examine the Scriptures of the Jewish people and of the early Christian community to get a sense of their notions of human relations with the other beings.
One thing to note right from the beginning, there are various writers of the scriptures, and the authors may have somewhat different emphases on the importance of man’s relationship to nature. In Genesis there are two separate creation stories – the one presented in Genesis 1[5], which is from the priestly tradition – people who write from an urban point of view, and the one presented in Genesis 2[6], from the Yahwist tradition – written from a rural/agricultural point of view. The Yahwist tradition, a farmer’s approach, often portrays a much more intimate relationship between man and the rest of creation.
In Genesis 2[7], God feels that man should not be alone, so He goes through the process of attempting to create a partner for him:
18 The LORD God said: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.”
19 So the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name.
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man.
All of the various living beings were seen as potential mates for man. That should indicate the status they all held in God’s eyes.
A document from Christians for Environmental Stewardship presents a series of quotations from both the Old and New Testaments in order to demonstrate that the Judeo-Christian tradition calls us to be good stewards of the earth. They say[8]:
The Bible says that God expects, even demands, that we be stewards of His creation. Scripture is undisputable. God created the different species of plants and animals, blessed them, protected them and made a covenant with them.
Every time we, as humans, drive a species to extinction, we are stating that what God created, we can destroy. There is no scripture to support that view. Every time a species goes extinct, we are defaulting on the account that God has called us to manage. We are at the crossroads, able to choose to save or to destroy. It is our choice. The Bible is clear that creation expresses Gods wisdom and power. Christians are called to be stewards, to nurture, to protect, to preserve His creation.
They then proceed to show through scriptural examples that God expects humans to respect and care for the earth and all its inhabitants. They make the following points in their argument (each with a series of scriptural referents. I will just give samples of the scriptures cited):
- God Created the Earth and All of Nature in it (Psalm 104:25, 30. In wisdom you made them all, the earth is full of your creatures. There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number – living things both large and small … When you send your Spirit, they are created and you renew the earth.)
- God has a Relationship with All of His Creation (Psalm 96:10-13. The Lord reigns… Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad, let the seas resound and all that is in it; let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them. Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy, they will sing before the Lord for He comes, He comes to judge the earth. Isaiah 43:20-21. The wild animals honor me, the jackals and the owls, because I provide water in the desert and streams in the wasteland, to give drink to my people, my chosen.)
- God’s Power is Seen in Nature (Joshua 2:11. For the Lord your God is God in heaven above and on earth below.
- God Calls All of His Creation to Worship (Isaiah 55:12-13. The mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands. All this will be a memorial for the Lord, a sign that for all time will not be cut off.)
- God Teaches Humans through Nature (Job 12:7-10. But ask the animals, and they will teach you; or birds of the air and they will tell you; or speak to the earth and it will teach you; or let the fish of the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the lord has done this. In His hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.)
- God Expects Humans to be His Stewards with Nature (Genesis 1:26. Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” Lev. 25:23-24. The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land. Ezekiel 34:2-4. Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not the shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you did not take care of the flock! You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. Ezekiel 34:10. 0 shepherds, hear the word of the Lord. This is what the sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock.)
- God Expects Us to Obey Him in our Lifestyle (Luke 12:15,23,34. And He said to them, “Beware and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does life consist of his possessions. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Leviticus 26:3-4,6. If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, I will send you rain in its season and the ground will yield its crops and the trees of the field their fruit… and I will grant peace in the land.)
- God Expects Us to Obey His Commands (Psalm 37:34. Wait for the lord and keep his way. Exodus 23:2. Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong.)
This group provides a series of scriptural justifications for the contention that the Judeo-Christian tradition calls humanity to be good stewards of the gifts that God has provided. The gifts include, of course, the earth and all that fills it.
They go further, and say that there is a scriptural defense of endangered species. They cite four facts (scriptural) that undergird this defense:
- Fact #1 God Created the Different Species of Plants and Animals (Genesis 1:11-12. God created plants: Then God said, “let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees hearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:20-21. God created fish and birds: And God said, “let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24-25. God created animals: And God said, “let the land produce living creatures according to their kind: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.)
- Fact #2 God Blessed the Different Species of Plants and Animals Genesis 1:22. God blessed [the birds and sea animals], and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number.”
- Fact #3 God Protected the Different Species (Genesis 6:19-21. God said, “You are to bring into the ark two of every kind of living creature, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and them.” Noah did everything just as God commanded him. Genesis 7:8-10. Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah. And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.)
- Fact # 4 God Made an Eternal Covenant with the Different Species of Plants and Animals (Genesis 9:8-9. Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: “I now establish my covenant with you and your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you – the birds, the livestock, and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you – every living Creature on the earth.” Genesis 9:12-13. And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will he the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.)
This last “Fact” is quite impressive in the argument that living creatures, other than humans, are important to God. God made the covenant not only with man, but with ‘every living creature that was with you’. Not only is man worthy of consideration. All living beings are worthy of consideration in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Based on the documentation they provide, the authors of this piece conclude: “Scripture clearly states that God created, blessed, protected and made a covenant with the different species. As stewards of His creation we are called to do no less. It is our scriptural and moral duty to protect species and their habitat.”
Traditional Ecological Knowledge
I had hoped to conclude the paper with this point: Aristotle and the Greeks are the source of the notion that man is the pinnacle of creation and all was made for his use (and even abuse if he wants). The Judeo-Christian tradition actually calls for stewardship, not exploitation. However, in my research for this paper, I stumbled across an article co-authored by Raymond Pierotti and Daniel Wildcat (2000) on traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) which basically says that the stewardship approach is not really much different than Aristotle’s approach. Both approaches place human beings as above and beyond nature. The steward protects nature (for whatever reasons). “In the writings of philosophers as different as Aristotle, Descartes, and Kant, it is assumed that humans are autonomous from, and in control of the natural world…” (Pierotti and Wildcat, 2000, 1334). Ethics based on Aristotle place man above nature (above all lower levels of being) and thus in a position to utilize nature for his own self-interest. In Western thought, “all of nature can be exploited, regardless of whether it is for economic or aesthetic purposes” (2000, 1334).
“Traditional Ecological Knowledge … of Native American peoples … represents a third alternative, sharing elements with both extractive and conservationist approaches, yet remaining clearly distinct from both” (2000, 1334). This approach is neither exploitive of nature, nor seen as in a stewardship role vis a vis nature. There are two basic TEK concepts – “(1) all things are connected, which is conceptually related to Western community ecology, and (2) all things are related, which changes the emphasis from the human to the ecological community as the focus of theories concerning nature” (2000, 1333). “TEK assumes that humans are, and always will be, connected to the natural world, and that there is no such thing as nature that exists independent of humans and their activities” (2000, 1334).
In Traditional Ecological Knowledge, humans are just one more of the living beings on earth. They are members of the community of life.
The connections that are a crucial aspect of TEK are based on a mixture of extraction, e.g., animals are taken as prey, combined with recognition of the inherent value and good of nonhuman lives …. Traditional knowledge is based on the premise that humans should not view themselves as responsible for nature, i.e., we are not stewards of the natural world, but instead that we are part of that world, no greater than any other part …. In this way TEK deals largely with motivating humans to show respect for nonhumans. The respect for the nonhuman inherent in TEK can constrain natural human tendencies towards overexploitation, because nonhumans are incorporated into the ritual representation of the community, and are considered as members of the community … (2000, 1334).
So in TEK, human beings are part of the community of life. They are not above nature, its conservators: “Those who feel that is within their direct power to conserve nature typically also feel that they are in control of nature, and that nature should be conserved only insofar as it benefits humans, either economically or spiritually …” (2000, 1335). It is important to note that “…although the idea of a cycle, or circle, of life is an integral part of Native spiritual beliefs, this is not a mystical concept based upon great mysteries, but a practical recognition of the fact that all living things are literally connected to one another (2000, 1336).
So the argument that the Judeo-Christian tradition does not necessarily lead to an exploitive view of nature (as Aristotle’s can), and instead leads to a call to stewardship for nature, is critiqued by the insights of Traditional Ecological Knowledge. The Judeo-Christian tradition would appear to elevate humanity above nature, as does Aristotelianism. TEK has additional insights which recognize a different relationship between humanity and the rest of the living world.
This recognition of the value of nonhuman lives extends the social world to include animals as well as humans, and led to an ethical system that required proper treatment of the nonhuman. Humans live in mutual aid relationships with the nonhumans. If humans eat or otherwise use nonhumans, they are empowered by that relationship which leads to mutual respect …. Many nonhumans had powers far beyond the capabilities of ordinary humans, and were able to move with ease through worlds impassable to humans, e.g., air, water. Since animals were persons, and assumed to have some cognitive abilities, they were also assumed to recognize the danger when they were being hunted by humans. Thus if they were caught, it was also assumed to involve some element of choice on their part …, hence the concept of prey “giving itself to you.” This presumed gift required gratitude (thanks), as well as respectful treatment of the nonhuman remains on the part of the human who too the life of the nonhuman … (2000, 1337).
It is in this context that talk of the two-legged, four-legged, winged and swimming peoples makes sense.
Beyond Stewardship – a Theology of Partnership with Nature
My contention that Aristotle, not the Judeo-Christian tradition, was responsible for the exploitive attitude towards nature in Western thought seems to become inconsequential taking into account that Pierotti and Wildcat (2000) pointed out that both approaches are really two sides of the same coin. So once again I thought I was done (or done for). However, then, in my research I ran across an intriguing article (Santmire, 2003)[9] which argued that the Judeo-Christian tradition could be interpreted as calling for stewardship, but that would be incomplete. His article contends that this tradition calls us to go beyond the concept of stewardship to a concept of partnership. It appears that this approach, although not the same as Native American traditional ecological knowledge, could provide the platform for further dialogue between indigenous thought and that based on the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Santmire (2003, para 2) describes what churches have recently been endorsing.
“Stewardship,” has been promoted by our churches more than any other theological theme, in response to the global environmental crisis. Although the idea of stewardship itself has been expressed in a wide variety of ways, what might be called its received generic meaning can be simply expressed: wise management of the earth’s resources for the sake of human betterment.
He says (2003, para 7-8) that the “fullness of the biblical witness or, at least, a more complete statement of the biblical theology of nature, as it depicts the Divine and human relationships with nature … [allows us] “to develop a theology of partnership with nature, which will hopefully begin to take the place of what appears to be the more limited theology of stewardship of nature.”
He says (2003, para 9-10) that this biblical theology of a partnership with nature has three emphases based upon “…Genesis 1, Genesis 2-3, and Job 38-41 ….: creative intervention in nature, sensitive care for nature, and awestruck contemplation of nature.” The first of these emphases: creative intervention in nature is similar to the stewardship doctrine, however, it refashions it. He expresses the hope that his exegesis will be “something more, rather than something less or something totally different from what has been bequeathed to us” (2003, para 10).
(1) Genesis 1: Creative Intervention in Nature
Genesis 1 starts with God’s creative power. God speaks creation into being. This communication is not a one-way street. “At the same time, that general kind of communication also presupposes a kind of partnering with all creatures on God’s part, entailing God’s working with the other creatures and even, on occasion, depending on them to respond by their own canons of creaturely spontaneity and praise” (2003, para 14).
The Lord, according to the biblical witness, is launching a history with the whole world, with many creatures, not just the human creature. This is why we hear the ritualistic repetition of the phrase: “and God saw that it was good.” … God chooses to engage and to share life with all these creaturely domains, in their own right. Yes, humans are created to “rule” over the earth (Gen. 1:28) – more on this presently – but, likewise, in the same language, the sun and the moon are made to “rule” over the day and the night (Gen. 1:16-18). We see here a vision of a beautiful, interrelated whole of many different creatures, all of which are created by God to have a history with him (2003, para 16).
Humans “rule” over the earth, as do the sun and the moon “rule” over the day and the night. “All creatures are, some explicitly, others by implication, partners with God’s creativity, not mere objects of creative will posited for the sake of God’s relationship with humans” (2003, para 17). God does not make all of creation for man, or to enhance God’s relationship with man. Everything is made with its own integrity.
This does not lead us to the same place as indigenous thinking, for the Jewish scriptures do speak of a special relationship humans have with God, humans alone are made in the image of God. Santmire (2003, para 19) reflects upon the work of William Brown[10] in terms of man’s relationship to the earth:
the creation of the humans is introduced as a unique product of Divine intervention: whereas the land-based creatures are products of the land (Gen. 1:24), human beings are not. “The opening command,” Brown observes, “is ‘Let us make human beings in our image,’ not ‘Let the earth bring forth human beings.’ … the priestly writer makes clear that the land is not the source of human identity but only humankind’s natural habitat.
On the other hand, Santmire points out that in the scriptures “God is profoundly with all creatures, related to them and interacting with them as they respond to creative initiatives” (2003, para 22). Again, creation is not only for humans.
If the scriptures had said ‘let the earth bring forth humans’, this would have been much more compatible with indigenous thought. However, it does not. Indigenous thought posits that the land is, indeed, the source of human identity. So, although there is room for dialogue between Native and Western thought, the two are clearly distinct.
Genesis 1:28 (in the New American Bible) reads: “God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.” On the surface this would seem to say that humans have been given the charge to dominate the earth and impose control over all that live upon it. Santmire says that this interpretation does not stand up when taking into account further chapters in the scripture. He (and Brown, in his book) focus on the story of Noah (2003, para 28).
Brown observes that Noah “models primordial stewardship” – I would prefer to speak here in terms of “partnership” – by sustaining all of life in its representative forms. His “subduing” of the earth entails bringing together the animals of the earth into his zoological reserve, a floating speck of land, as it were. By fulfilling humankind’s role as royal steward over creation (1:28), Noah is a beacon of righteousness in an ocean of anarchy. Noah exercises human dominion over creation by preserving the integrity and diversity of life.
Santmire points out further, that
Noah takes both the clean and the unclean animals with him on to the ark! Had his assignment been to “make this a better world,” he surely might have seized upon this opportunity to leave the unclean behind – or the mosquitoes, for that matter. But, on the contrary, Noah’s vocation is to serve as a partner with God in behalf of the world that God created, with all its diversity, not first and foremost to improve the lot of humans on this earth. Human intervention in nature is thus envisioned by the priestly writers as within limits, both theocentric and cosmocentric. It could be called – a limited partnership. One could say, in this sense, that God expects humans, yes, to establish their own unique communities, yet not with wanton destruction, but always in cooperation with and respect for all the other Divinely mandated domains of creation, each of which has its own intrinsic value, since it is valued itself by God: each creaturely domain is created with its own goodness, in the eyes of God.
Thus, dominion in this context actually means ‘taking care of’, being a good steward of all that has been provided by God.
(2) Genesis 2-3: Sensitive Care for Nature
Genesis 1 was written by those in the priestly tradition, those from an urban and institutional background. This section is from the Yahwist tradition (an older tradition) which is, as Santmire puts it “small-scale agrarian” (2003, para 41). Genesis 1 describes humans as God’s partners in building human communities throughout the earth, while Genesis 2 describes a complementary role for humans – caring sensitively for nature:
Genesis 1, we can say, projects a normative vision of the human relationship with nature in terms of intervention for the sake of building human community: to fill the earth, in this sense, with justice and peace, as the human family expands to all lands. [Another vision for humans is that they provide] sensitive care for nature. The first construct refers to using nature appropriately, in partnership with God, for the sake of building human community all over the earth, while the second refers to respecting and responding to nature, again in partnership with God, more in terms of nature’s own needs. …
The Yahwistic creation story in Genesis 2, shaped by agrarian sensibilities, definitely exemplifies what sensitive care for the earth can mean. (2003, para 43)
Humans are to care for the earth.
More than caring for the earth, in contrast to the priestly tradition described above, the rural Yahwist actually sees that humans are created from the earth. As Genesis 2:7 (New American Bible) states: “the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.” Santmire (2003, para ) refers to the work of another biblical scholar, Theodore Hiebert[11], in interpreting this scripture:
in the Yahwist’s creation story that Adam is made from the earth – adamah. This is an observation that is frequently made, but Hiebert instructively wants to underline the concrete meaning of that Hebrew word. Adam, it turns out, is not just created from the earth; he is created from the “arable soil.” Such is the first human’s agrarian identity, according to the Yahwist. “It is the claim that humanity’s archetypal agricultural vocation is implanted within humans by the very stuff out of which they are made, the arable soil itself,” Hiebert observes. “Humans, made from farmland, are destined to farm it in life and to return to it in death (Gen 3:19, 23).
It is humanity’s job to serve and protect the land (not subdue and conquer it). God is seen, in the scriptures, as taking the
human and placing him in the Garden of Eden in order to serve (abad) the land and protect (samar) it. The most familiar English translations of these words – “to till and to keep” – are profoundly misleading. The Hebrew tells a much different story. The first term has the same Hebrew root as the word used by Isaiah to refer to “the servant of the Lord.” The second term has the same Hebrew root as the word used in the Aaronic blessing: “May the Lord bless you and keep you.” With only the received translation before them, general readers of this text might well understand it as a kind of agribusiness manifesto: to develop the productivity of the land and keep the profits. They would have no reason to think that the words refer in fact to identifying and responding to needs of the land itself and protecting the land from abuse or destruction.
Scripture can be misinterpreted easily when the actual meaning of the words are not taken into account.
Santmire (2003, para 49-50) takes issue with the notion that naming gives power over, or domination of nature.
The account of Adam naming the animals reflects the same Yahwistic assumptions, although the text has often been interpreted otherwise. Many commentaries in the last century routinely voiced the judgment, often drawing on examples from the history of religions, that naming is an act of power and that therefore Adam’s naming of the animals was to be interpreted in terms of dominance. The text, however, seen in its biblical context, actually tells a radically different story. In a certain sense, the Creator is depicted as withdrawing from the scene for the moment in bringing the animals to Adam to see what the human might name them (Gen. 2:19). But this can be read as a thoughtful withdrawal to encourage creaturely bonding, rather than as some disinterested deistic withdrawal whose purpose would be to hand over power to the human. The naming itself, moreover, can be understood as an act of affection on the part of the human, akin to the notion that Yahweh gives Israel, the beloved, a name (e.g. Is. 56:5) or when Adam, rejoicing, gives the woman who is to be his strong, personal partner, a name (Gen. 1:23). Comradeship on the part of Adam with the animals seems to be implied here in this naming scene, perhaps even with nuances of friendship and self-giving.
All this – the human, formed from the arable soil, serving and protecting that soil and its lavish fecundities – illustrates why it is instructive to think of the Yahwist’s vision of the Divinely given human relationship with nature as sensitive care for nature.
Naming is not a sign of domination, but a sign of affection and connection. Humans are to provide sensitive care for nature.
(3) Job 38-41: Awestruck Contemplation of Nature
The book of Job provides the third emphasis in this theology of nature which emphasizes a partnership with nature, the contemplation of nature. Santmire (2003, para 62, 69) describes this emphasis in this way:
Here the themes of creative intervention in nature and sensitive care for nature of the priestly writers and the Yahwist give way to the theme of awestruck contemplation of nature. Partnership with God in the midst of nature and partnership with nature now mean stepping back from nature, letting nature be and seeing it for what it is for God and in itself, apart from the interventions and the caring of humans…. This is nature as it is in itself, apart from human culture, raw and bloody, yet teeming with life, populated with exotic creatures appropriate to their respective domains. The animals appear two by two, lion and raven (38:39-41), mountain goat and deer (39:1-4), onager and auroch (39:5-12), ostrich and warhorse (39:13-25), and the hawk and vulture (39:26-30).
This focus on nature is a respecting of nature in its own right – not in its relationship to humans.
“The Jobean discourse goes still further in its celebration of the wild. Not only do we see noble, wild creatures, nurtured by God. We also see noble, wild beasts celebrated, precisely because they resist human domestication” (2003, para 71) Nature has its own value before God. Indeed, the story of Job (2003, para 74) indicates that man is a part of nature:
Human dignity is precisely to be one of God’s many creatures, never forsaken by God, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. Job is able, therefore, in the end, to claim new meaning for his life, coram Deo[12], as one among many creatures, all of whom are God’s children, all of whom have been nurtured and set free by God.
Job learns to look at the animals of the wild as his siblings. He is one with them, no longer looking down on them.
We learn from the story of Job that a contemplation of nature will leave us in awe of the greatness of the creations of God.
Conclusion: discovery of A Theology of Partnership
Seeking information about Aristotle to counter the argument that the Judeo-Christian tradition is not the source of the Western tradition of domination of nature led me to learn (or relearn) a number of things:
- that Aristotle (and Greek philosophy) is the origin of the notion that humanity is the pinnacle of creation and dominates nature;
- that the Judeo-Christian scriptures can provide a foundation for the argument that humanity’s role with regard to nature is one of stewardship;
- that Native American based Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) provides an alternative to both Greek domination of nature and Judeo-Christian stewardship (both of which assume that humanity is apart from and superior to nature);
- and, there is an additional approach to nature which can be derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition, a theology of partnership which has three emphases: creative intervention in nature, sensitive care for nature, and awestruck contemplation of nature.
I would like to close with a description (Santmire, 2003 para 72) of this theology of a partnership with nature (which I believe can provide a third alternative for the Western tradition and a basis for a possible dialogue between indigenous thought and Western thought regarding nature):
…this is what the Bible shows us. God has a history with nature and values nature in itself, independent of his relationship with the human creature. God creates a grand and beautiful world of nature for his own purposes, not just as a home and fecund source of blessings for the human creature. God loves nature. God wants all the creatures of nature to flourish, in their own domains. God fashions nature as a harmonious and beautiful whole, of infinite diversity. God rejoices in all the creatures of nature. So the world of nature is beautiful and harmonious and awe-inspiring. But at its edges, beyond our habitat, it is also mysterious, sometimes threatening, even horrifying to us. But that is God’s business and infinite joy (cf. Psalm 104:31), not ours. God does fashion us and invite us, however, to be in partnership – a limited partnership – not only with God and with one another, but also with the beautiful and harmonious world of nature and to encounter its deep mysteries and its occasionally horrendous ambiguities. More particularly, God calls us to be in partnership with nature in three major ways, suggested by the priestly writers, the Yahwist, and the narrator of Job: creative intervention in nature, sensitive care for nature, and awestruck contemplation of nature. The witness of the Scriptures is at least that rich and that complex.
15
[1] Vine Deloria, The Metaphysics of Modern Existence. (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979).
[2] Traditional Ecological Knowledge: The Third Alternative (Commentary). Author(s): Raymond Pierotti and Daniel Wildcat. Source: Ecological Applications, Vol. 10, No. 5 (Oct., 2000), pp. 1333-1340. Published by: Ecological Society of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2641289 Accessed: 27/03/2009 10:38
[3] J.A.K. Thomson. The Ethics of Aristotle. (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1955.
[4] Aristotle. The Project Gutenberg EBook of Ethics.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/8ethc10.txt (accessed April 5, 2009).
[5] Actually, Genesis 1:1 – 2:4a.
[6] Actually, Genesis 2:4b-25.
[7] Source: New American Bible, http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/; accessed 4/2/09.
[8] http://www.christianecology.org/Stewardship.html accessed 4/7/09.
[9] H. Paul Santmire. Partnership with Nature According to the Scriptures: Beyond the Theology of Stewardship. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s website http://www.elca.org/
Originally published in Christian Scholars Review, Vol XXXII, Number 4 (Summer, 2003).
[10] William P. Brown. The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
[11] Theodore Hiebert, The Yahwist’s Landscape: Nature and Religion in Early Israel (New York: Oxford, 1996).
[12] “before the face of God”