Comments on: Pollution and the Death of Man http://deepgreenconversation.org/pollution-and-the-death-of-man/ Sun, 16 May 2010 05:35:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: John Mustol http://deepgreenconversation.org/pollution-and-the-death-of-man/comment-page-1/#comment-761 John Mustol Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:03:33 +0000 http://deepgreenconversation.org/?p=405#comment-761 Lynn White's paper published in Science in 1967 is, without doubt, the most influential piece on Christianity and ecology written in the 20th century. For excellent studies of White's thesis and the evangelical response to it see the following: David Kenneth Larsen, God's Gardeners: American Protestant Evangelicals Confront Environmentalism, 1967-2000. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago Divinity School, 2001. Joseph K. Sheldon, Rediscovery of Creation: A Bibliographic Study of the Church's Response to the Environmental Crisis. Edited by Kenneth E. Rowe, Metuchan, NJ: American Theological Library Association and the Scarecrow Press, 1992. Mary Aline Duitsman, "Ecology and Theology: Christian Responses to Lynn White Jr." M.A. California State University Northridge. 1987. Larsen calls White's paper the "Silent Spring" of environmental theology (p. 54). His treatment of White begins in chapter 2, p. 39. His excellent review of Schaeffer's response to White begins on p. 60. He recognizes that Schaeffer's short book represents the first extended evangelical response to White and that Schaeffer rightly accepted the failure of Christians to live their theology in relation to God's earth and his creatures. He defended the Bible and Christian theology but did not try to defend Christian behavior. He also rightly notes that Schaeffer misrepresented Richard L, Means' article, "Why Worry About Nature," published in the Saturday Review, December, 1967. Schaeffer wrongly alleged that Means was promoting pantheism. Means wrote a letter to Schaeffer about it, but Schaeffer never responded. Larsen also comments that the evangelical response to ecological problems has generally followed the culture (p. 78). This "showed that evangelicals are not so much separate from their culture as they are a product of it" (p. 79). What are the implications of this historical reality for 21st century Christian eco-ethics? Lynn White’s paper published in Science in 1967 is, without doubt, the most influential piece on Christianity and ecology written in the 20th century. For excellent studies of White’s thesis and the evangelical response to it see the following:

David Kenneth Larsen, God’s Gardeners: American Protestant Evangelicals Confront Environmentalism, 1967-2000. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago Divinity School, 2001.

Joseph K. Sheldon, Rediscovery of Creation: A Bibliographic Study of the Church’s Response to the Environmental Crisis. Edited by Kenneth E. Rowe, Metuchan, NJ: American Theological Library Association and the Scarecrow Press, 1992.

Mary Aline Duitsman, “Ecology and Theology: Christian Responses to Lynn White Jr.” M.A. California State University Northridge. 1987.

Larsen calls White’s paper the “Silent Spring” of environmental theology (p. 54). His treatment of White begins in chapter 2, p. 39. His excellent review of Schaeffer’s response to White begins on p. 60. He recognizes that Schaeffer’s short book represents the first extended evangelical response to White and that Schaeffer rightly accepted the failure of Christians to live their theology in relation to God’s earth and his creatures. He defended the Bible and Christian theology but did not try to defend Christian behavior. He also rightly notes that Schaeffer misrepresented Richard L, Means’ article, “Why Worry About Nature,” published in the Saturday Review, December, 1967. Schaeffer wrongly alleged that Means was promoting pantheism. Means wrote a letter to Schaeffer about it, but Schaeffer never responded.

Larsen also comments that the evangelical response to ecological problems has generally followed the culture (p. 78). This “showed that evangelicals are not so much separate from their culture as they are a product of it” (p. 79). What are the implications of this historical reality for 21st century Christian eco-ethics?

]]>