A Response to Scott Sabin: True “Christian Environmentalism” and the Substance of the Gospel

“Over 500,000 trees have been planted…This is gospel work.”

- Scott Sabin, executive director of Plant with a Purpose

I love God’s raw creation. Untweaked, unmodified, as close to Eden as possible. Streams and forests with no trails. Rivers with no dams. Prairies with no fences and hills with no power lines. God has manifested His beauty, genius, and power in the visible ecosystems of our world, and we are commanded to enjoy them.

Obviously, there is no excuse for the unnecessary destruction God’s creation.  All Christians are “environmentalists” in this general sense: we are stewards of the earth. God prepared creation for man in Genesis – to tend, to keep, and not to destroy. Since creation is something never owned by any creature, all men have a responsibility before God to use it for some God-glorifying purpose, and in doing so, use the land and resources with wisdom and efficiency.

This is the Christian perspective on “environmentalism” and “creation-care.” There is a relationship demonstrated in Genesis 1-3 and the rest of Scripture between the creature and creation, and to ignore such a relationship is to ignore God’s design for the earth. We must seek balance and harmony, no doubt.

Of course, that relationship is secondary to the relationship between the creature and the Creator. Man’s highest priority, highest desire, and greatest fulfillment is found in God above the heavens, not in the earth below his feet. As such, the 1,500 years of God giving His revelation to man in the Scriptures manifests this priority: the primary focus of Scripture is on the God-God, God-creature, and God-creation relationship, not the creature-creation relationship. And when God Himself walked the earth 2,000 years ago, he wasn’t found flipping over tables in rage because natural resources were being abused, he was found saving souls and proclaiming the Kingdom. Don’t get it wrong – Christ cares for the earth, but he is especially concerned with His images, for they, after all, and not any other part of creation, were especially created to display His glory.

Scott Sabin nails the former (inherent stewardship), but not the latter (priorities) in his essay, “Whole Earth Evangelism” in the July 2010 Christianity Today. He says,

Scripture…indicates a direct correlation between the behavior of humans and the health of the earth. The ground is cursed as a result of Adam’s sin. Later, in the story of the flood, human sin results in the destruction of most life on earth. What is spared is saved through the active participation of Noah. In Jeremiah 12:4 and many other passages, we see the land and its creatures suffering as a direct result of sin. (28)

One couldn’t agree more. And I think central aspects of the Old Testament covenants with regard to the land might also demonstrate this point. Sabin summarizes succinctly, but then adds something interesting:

Following in Adam’s footsteps, we are still called to be stewards of creation, which still belongs to God. But our role now goes further. Paul tells us in Romans 8:22 that creation is groaning as if in childbirth, anticipating redemption and eagerly awaiting for the children of God to be revealed. As God’s children, we are part of this good news for creation – a creation that until now has suffered due to our sin and greed. God’s plan of redemption is intended as good news not just for us but for the environment as well. While only God can finally redeem the creation, we are his agents in bringing a foretaste of that redemption. As Christians, our environmental responsibility is awesome and humbling.

The first thing we should notice is the parallel made between (a) human beings as commanded stewards of creation and (b) “good news” in Romans 8:22 that Christians are apparently supposed to proclaim. To put it bluntly, Sabin is distorting the priorities in the Christian gospel. The “good news” is that Jesus is the Christ, He has the power to forgive sins, and that all who trust in His name are counted righteous in God’s sight. This is the news we proclaim to the world, not “Believe and be baptized, because there will not be deforestation in the new earth!”

Is global restoration part of “the gospel”? Certainly. Al Wolters has done a decent job in Creation Regained of making that point. All of creation looks forward to restoration, not merely human beings. All of creation is the object of God’s saving grace, not just persons.

But, all Christians believes this, and it ignores the real issue: what’s a higher priority to God? Man, or the organisms man consumes? God’s images who are made specifically to reflect God’s glory, or the rest of creation that is dominated and subdued by God’s images? Surely, Sabin would agree that while Christ is redeeming all of creation, Christ’s work is specifically oriented towards saving human beings and not moths and shrubs.

Ironically, that’s the real point of the context in Romans 8, which Sabin fails to quote in its entirety:

And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. (Romans 8:23-26, ESV)

Exactly. All of creation groans – but human beings specifically; we have the “first fruits” (ἀπαρχὴν) of God’s Spirit. Paul specifically contrasts the groaning of creation with the groaning of God’s images, who “wait eagerly for adoption as sons.” Do pine trees partake in this adoption as sons? Lakes and rivers? Jungles? Not at all. They will not be adopted as sons, because they are not human beings at all. Moreover, Paul introduces teaching on the gospel out of this very distinction that Sabin and countless other Christian environmentalists want to ignore; “we were saved,” and “in this hope we were saved,” and “we hope for what we do not see.” Again, Paul is bolstering the importance of the gospel by demonstrating that it is inherently oriented towards God’s images, first and foremost.

In summary, Paul couldn’t be more clear that God has priorities in His creation and restoration. The environment is so incredibly important. In many ways, we live or die by the health of our earth, and it was given to us specifically to enjoy and take care of. And, Christ will redeem all of creation, not just parts. But the environment does not have “the first fruits” of the Spirit. The environment will not be adopted as “sons” of God. And the environment is part of what we see, and is not the things unseen that we hope for above all else. If Scripture is our norm, then it is clear that God cares more about (or, at least, seems to express a more central concern over) His images than the environment they live in.

Sabin essentially objects to this when he says on page 28, “There is no need to prioritize between love of neighbor and care for God’s creation.” This is a different twist, since it excludes God’s opinion and focuses on two of man’s opinions (humans loving humans, humans loving creation). Regardless, surely there is even a distinction there. Is not God more pleased that we love God with all our hearts, and love our neighbor as ourselves than preventing pollution? 

I think planting trees while preaching the gospel is a wonderful idea. After all, we should do both. But Sabin and others go beyond that and confuse the substance of the gospel:

African conference attendance resulted in action. One Tanzanian pastor encouraged all the churches in his region to establish tree nurseries. They required those going through confirmation classes to plant trees in order to graduate. As a result, over 500,000 trees have been planted, and an important water source that had become intermittent now flows steadily.

This is gospel work. Paul reminds us in Romans 1:20 that creation reveals much about God. As such, it is a perfect starting point for a conversation about what we can learn of God’s character from His Word. Environmental stewardship can be integral part of God’s story of redemption. (29)

Wow. This last paragraph sounds incredibly familiar:

Creation care is a launching pad for the gospel. I correspond with missionaries around the world who are glad to see American Christians championing “creation care.” In many foreign countries, missionaries don’t begin with Jesus, an unknown, when witnessing to others. Rather they begin with creation and the Creator, who is clearly evident to all (Rom. 1).

Jonathan Merritt, “Creation Care.” June, Christianity Today, 46.

If you recall, I responded to Merritt here. That response will suffice for Sabin as well. Although, I want to just say two things.

First, this is an incredibly bad argument:

1. Over 500,000 trees have been planted.
2. God has revealed himself in creation (Romans 1), which Christians can talk about with unbelievers in leading them to Christ.
3. Therefore, tree-planting is “gospel work.”

Second, no one is denying that “environmental stewardship can be integral part of God’s story of redemption.” If all of creation has been affected by sin, and all of creation will be restored, then any part of creation “can be an integral part of God’s story of redemption.” But that’s a lot different than saying planting trees is “gospel work”! For in that case, what isn’t gospel work?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a Kuyperian and I understand that redemption involves every square inch of creation, and that there is no major dualism between “the secular” and “the sacred” on God’s earth. But, the “gospel” is not something that can be constantly blurred into various aspects of creation, at least if we are to use the term in a New Testament sense.

In conclusion, we must ask two things:

1. How did Jesus and the disciples use the term “gospel”? What did they proclaim? What would they consider “gospel work”?
2. Does not God give priorities in His Word regarding what is more important than what? Is there not a hierarchy of action just as there is a hierarchy of truth? Is God really just as pleased with Christians imparting material blessing to the world as imparting spiritual blessing?