God entrusted us with the environment

The argument

Whilst the message in the first chapter of Genesis is clearly that of God giving the planet and everything that came with it to humans, many passages of subsequent chapters of Genesis and the wider Old Testament show that we have a God given duty to care for the environment. The argument turns on how the gift is characterised: a grant can be an entitlement to use or a responsibility to keep, and proponents read the later text as settling it as the second. When God puts Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, God tells them to "work it and take care of it," (Genesis 2:15), which is an instruction to tend rather than merely to hold. Pope John Paul II also thought that the reason humans were special is because God entrusted the whole of creation to man and woman and only then could he rest from "all his work". The word entrusted is the load-bearing one, since a trust is held on behalf of another and is answerable to them. On this reading human distinctiveness is not a licence but an office. The value of what is entrusted is established independently of humanity's use of it. The whole of creation is of value to God: after God has made man, he sees everything that he has made and proclaims "it was very good," (Genesis 1:31), showing that humans give added value to a universe he already values. Creation is therefore not raw material awaiting a purpose but something already pronounced good before any human use of it. John Paul II noted too that Jesus has made new all things - "all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross" (Colossians 1:19-20), extending the scope of that concern beyond humanity alone.

Context

This is now the most predominant view amongst theologians, they argue that the Old Testament should be re-interpreted.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics note that the same scriptures are read the other way by other believers. The creation account that speaks of God entrusting the earth also tells humanity to 'subdue' it and grants 'dominion' over living things (Genesis 1:28), language a rival religious position (that faith licenses instrumental use of nature) takes as authorising mastery and use rather than protective stewardship. Which reading is correct is a matter of theological interpretation on which traditions genuinely disagree, so citing 'stewardship' passages does not by itself settle what religion teaches. They add that a scriptural argument binds only those who accept the scripture and the interpretation. It gives believers a reason to care for the environment but leaves untouched the many people who do not share the faith, so as a general answer to whether we should care for the environment it is limited in reach even if its exegesis is granted.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Critics note the same texts include 'subdue the earth' and 'dominion' (Genesis 1:28), which a competing religious reading takes to license use of nature, so 'work it and take care of it' does not uniquely establish a duty of stewardship. [Rejecting C] Even granting the interpretation, the conclusion holds only for those who accept the scripture as authoritative, so it does not reach a general audience the way a secular argument would.