Among many environmentalists religious belief is often viewed, at best, as irrelevant in addressing environmental issues or, at worst - particularly in the case of Christianity - as a leading culprit in creating the global environmental crisis. No religion, either Eastern or Western, primitive or modern, has ever prevented environmental degradation, and in some instances religions have aided and abetted the destruction of ecosystems. This disdain for religion reflects 'the largely unexamined position espoused by scores of ecologists, historians, philosophers, poets, nature writers, political activists, and even some theologians who have identified themselves with the ecology movement' (Santmire, 1985). Two articles which conveniently frame the growth of popular ecological consciousness over the last quarter-century reflect this environmentalist disdain for religion. In his now classic essay, 'The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis' Lynn White, Jr indicts Christianity as the source of humanity's 'unnatural treatment of nature and its sad results' (White, 1983). According to White, Christian theology stripped nature of any sacred status leaving it composed of inanimate objects and ignorant beasts that humans could exploit and manipulate with impunity. When this anthropocentric faith was uniquely joined with modern science and technology an unprecedented destructive power was unleashed. Nor did Christianity's destructive influence wane with modern secularity. Although 'the forms of our thinking and language have largely ceased to be Christian', we nonetheless continue 'to live ... very largely in a context of Christian axioms' (White, 1983). Consequently, in terms of the global environmental crisis, 'Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt' (White, 1983). Twenty-five years after the publication of White's essay, Wendell Berry, in his article, 'Christianity and the Survival of Creation', notes that Christians are culpable for the 0960-3115 ©
Among many environmentalists religious belief is often viewed, at best, as irrelevant in addressing environmental issues or, at worst - particularly in the case of Christianity - as a leading culprit in creating the global environmental crisis. No religion, either Eastern or Western, primitive or modern, has ever prevented environmental degradation, and in some instances religions have aided and abetted the destruction of ecosystems. This disdain for religion reflects 'the largely unexamined position espoused by scores of ecologists, historians, philosophers, poets, nature writers, political activists, and even some theologians who have identified themselves with the ecology movement' (Santmire, 1985). Two articles which conveniently frame the growth of popular ecological consciousness over the last quarter-century reflect this environmentalist disdain for religion. In his now classic essay, 'The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis' Lynn White, Jr indicts Christianity as the source of humanity's 'unnatural treatment of nature and its sad results' (White, 1983). According to White, Christian theology stripped nature of any sacred status leaving it composed of inanimate objects and ignorant beasts that humans could exploit and manipulate with impunity. When this anthropocentric faith was uniquely joined with modern science and technology an unprecedented destructive power was unleashed. Nor did Christianity's destructive influence wane with modern secularity. Although 'the forms of our thinking and language have largely ceased to be Christian', we nonetheless continue 'to live ... very largely in a context of Christian axioms' (White, 1983). Consequently, in terms of the global environmental crisis, 'Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt' (White, 1983). Twenty-five years after the publication of White's essay, Wendell Berry, in his article, 'Christianity and the Survival of Creation', notes that Christians are culpable for the 0960-3115 ©