346
J. M. Luetz and R. G. Leo
communities in the sustainability of the planet (Hore-Lacy 2006; Spencer and White
2007; Brunner et al. 2014; Nelson and Luetz 2019). This includes Pacific Island
nations, which are characterised by a high degree of Christianisation (Ernst 2012;
Gibson et al. 2013; Nunn et al. 2016; Rubow and Bird 2016; Fair 2018; Havea et al.
2018). Scholars have used a range of terminological and conceptual approaches to
describe different expressions of this faith-informed concern (or faith-informed lack
of concern) for environmentally sympathetic practices (Hessel and Radford Ruether
2000; Orr 2005; Zaleha and Szasz 2015; Kempf 2020).
It was Lyn White Jnr’s seminal (1967) article which described Christianity, at least
in its Western form, as “the most anthropocentric religion the world has ever seen”
(p. 1205). This publication effectively birthed the field of contemporary ecotheology,
yet sparked numerous responses, many of which took issue with his key criticism,
namely that Christianity was both the source and propagator of our current environmental crisis (Björnberg et al. 2017; Braterman 2020). More recently, ecotheology
has been discussed under headings such as creation care, theology of earth care, faithbased ecosystem management, and biblically-based stewardship, among others (Ayre
2014; Brunner 2014). Relevant ecotheological ideas commonly explore the interrelationships between religion and nature in the light of contemporary environmental
concerns, thus forcing the conversation to become more theistically centred (Moo
and Moo 2018). More specifically, ecotheology typically grapples with questions of
how spirituality impinges on sustainability (Hodson and Hodson 2008; Spencer et al.
2009). In the literature, we identify three broad strategies of biblical interpretation (or
hermeneutic
1 ): recovery, resistance or revision (Horrell 2010; Moo and Moo 2018).
Recovery approaches believe that Christians have simply failed to see the ecological wisdom which already exists in the bible. Adherents of this perspective argue
that green perspectives have just been hidden or obscured by the way that people
have previously interpreted the scriptures. Practitioners of this approach are trying
to ‘recover’ these missing perspectives, principally by trying to rescue Christian
thought from the accusation that Christianity is an anthropocentric religion that is
underpinned by the dominion (or domination) theory (more on this in Sect. 5). Examples of this approach would include the Green Bible where green print was used for
those passages deemed ecologically relevant by the editors (Maudlin and Baer 1989)
or the Exeter Project which used history to understand what the bible might have to
say about ecology and theology (University of Exeter n.d.).
Others accept that White had a valid case. Those who hold this view are happy to
acknowledge that the bible, at least in parts,
2 is an anthropocentric text. Authors who
hold to this perspective are often strongly committed to ecological values already and
1 In the world of ecotheology it is important to note that there is a subtle difference between ‘environmental hermeneutics’ and ‘ecological hermeneutics’, whereby the latter is a sub-branch of the
former. This difference may seem subtle, but it is the difference between talking about the scientific
field of ‘ecology’ versus ‘the environment’ (Nilsen and Solevåg 2016, p. 672). Much general Christian discussion does not seem to care about this difference. Whilst acknowledging this subtlety of
difference, to avoid any confusion, this chapter will use the term ‘ecological hermeneutic’ to also
refer to an ‘environmental hermeneutic’.
2 This perspective acknowledges the diverse authorship of the bible over many centuries.
J. M. Luetz and R. G. Leo
communities in the sustainability of the planet (Hore-Lacy 2006; Spencer and White
2007; Brunner et al. 2014; Nelson and Luetz 2019). This includes Pacific Island
nations, which are characterised by a high degree of Christianisation (Ernst 2012;
Gibson et al. 2013; Nunn et al. 2016; Rubow and Bird 2016; Fair 2018; Havea et al.
2018). Scholars have used a range of terminological and conceptual approaches to
describe different expressions of this faith-informed concern (or faith-informed lack
of concern) for environmentally sympathetic practices (Hessel and Radford Ruether
2000; Orr 2005; Zaleha and Szasz 2015; Kempf 2020).
It was Lyn White Jnr’s seminal (1967) article which described Christianity, at least
in its Western form, as “the most anthropocentric religion the world has ever seen”
(p. 1205). This publication effectively birthed the field of contemporary ecotheology,
yet sparked numerous responses, many of which took issue with his key criticism,
namely that Christianity was both the source and propagator of our current environmental crisis (Björnberg et al. 2017; Braterman 2020). More recently, ecotheology
has been discussed under headings such as creation care, theology of earth care, faithbased ecosystem management, and biblically-based stewardship, among others (Ayre
2014; Brunner 2014). Relevant ecotheological ideas commonly explore the interrelationships between religion and nature in the light of contemporary environmental
concerns, thus forcing the conversation to become more theistically centred (Moo
and Moo 2018). More specifically, ecotheology typically grapples with questions of
how spirituality impinges on sustainability (Hodson and Hodson 2008; Spencer et al.
2009). In the literature, we identify three broad strategies of biblical interpretation (or
hermeneutic
1 ): recovery, resistance or revision (Horrell 2010; Moo and Moo 2018).
Recovery approaches believe that Christians have simply failed to see the ecological wisdom which already exists in the bible. Adherents of this perspective argue
that green perspectives have just been hidden or obscured by the way that people
have previously interpreted the scriptures. Practitioners of this approach are trying
to ‘recover’ these missing perspectives, principally by trying to rescue Christian
thought from the accusation that Christianity is an anthropocentric religion that is
underpinned by the dominion (or domination) theory (more on this in Sect. 5). Examples of this approach would include the Green Bible where green print was used for
those passages deemed ecologically relevant by the editors (Maudlin and Baer 1989)
or the Exeter Project which used history to understand what the bible might have to
say about ecology and theology (University of Exeter n.d.).
Others accept that White had a valid case. Those who hold this view are happy to
acknowledge that the bible, at least in parts,
2 is an anthropocentric text. Authors who
hold to this perspective are often strongly committed to ecological values already and
1 In the world of ecotheology it is important to note that there is a subtle difference between ‘environmental hermeneutics’ and ‘ecological hermeneutics’, whereby the latter is a sub-branch of the
former. This difference may seem subtle, but it is the difference between talking about the scientific
field of ‘ecology’ versus ‘the environment’ (Nilsen and Solevåg 2016, p. 672). Much general Christian discussion does not seem to care about this difference. Whilst acknowledging this subtlety of
difference, to avoid any confusion, this chapter will use the term ‘ecological hermeneutic’ to also
refer to an ‘environmental hermeneutic’.
2 This perspective acknowledges the diverse authorship of the bible over many centuries.