Christians, the Care of Creation, and Global Climate Change---A Review

Christians, The Care of Creation, and Global Climate Change is yet another work dedicated to exhorting Evangelical Christians to take environmental issues seriously and more particularly, to support efforts to reduce behaviors contributing to global climate change.  

The book is a compilation of a series articles separated into two sections. The first section contains articles from a panel discussion on global climate change that occurred at Wheaton College (Chicago) in 2007. The articles confront the difficulty in proving that humans are in fact responsible for climate change and that greenhouse gasses (Carbon dioxide in particular) are responsible for such change. Ultimately, the authors suggest that the evidence, though short of proof, is so overwhelming that one must be ideologically motivated to deny the evidence and the resultant conclusion, namely humans need to act now to reduce carbon emissions in order to forestall a global environmental catastrophe. Since it is written for Christians by Christians, frequent appeals to helping one’s “poorer” neighbor and caring for God’s creation are repeated in evangelistic fashion.

Articles in the second section cover the transition at Wheaton College, a major evangelical school of higher education, from being neutral on the subject of climate change to a supporter of those wearing the mantle of being “green”.  The articles explain why Conservative Christians need not be afraid of science, the problems presented by opportunity cost in trying make “green” choices, and why Evangelical Christians have historically been silent on environmental issues. 

On the positive side, the book does a pretty good job explaining the theory of Global Climate Change and how it relates to greenhouse gasses. I thought the authors, though true believers, did a responsible job in not overstating the significance of the Climate Change evidence. I also appreciated the candor of Ben Lowe who in his article “An Unlikely Tree Hugger” forthrightly acknowledged the complexities surrounding the decisions related to making green choices.  

Overall, however, I was rather disappointed with the text on a number of fronts. First, the authors never thoroughly engaged all four questions posed by the ACTON Institute regarding global climate change that are critical to any moral discussion on the subject. I will paraphrase them for readers here. 1. Is climate change occurring? 2. Is it a bad thing? 3. Are humans the cause? 4. Can we do anything about it? To be fair, the authors dealt with the first three questions, albeit not with equal fervor or balance. For example, rising oceans will negatively affect island countries but warmer temperatures will help extend growing seasons elsewhere. Question 4 was only touched upon. I recall reading where even if the Kyoto Treaty was enacted as written (without Nations reneging on their deals), we would only push out the consequences 5 years.  In other words, we have so much carbon in the system now, that even if our output of additional carbon was neutral (a monumental challenge) we would still bear the effects that are called catastrophic by the global warming folks. So my question is, if the boat is going to sink anyway, is there any real value in trying to bail water with a spoon? Or would your time be better spent trying to make plans for the inevitable?

The second problem stems from the authors trying to burden Christians with yet additional moral laws. I find it interesting that fundamentalists are always being accused of being legalists and adding rules to the faith. Yet, here we have non-fundamentalist Christians seeking to do the same. Every time I want to drive my car do I have to stop and think, “Is this trip worth killing the planet for?” Is this what Christ meant when he said His yoke was easy and his burden was light? In the same manner, did the conference sponsors consider the impact the conference and book publishing would have on the environment? Or did they think it was necessary to burn fossil fuels and kill trees for a bigger cause? I don’t doubt the sincerity or dedication to Christ of the individuals involved. I consider myself a rather radical environmentalist (e.g. I believe the U.S. should ban new road construction and simply fix what we have), but I don’t see stewardship in the way these authors seem to. Stewardship involves my time and resources. Sure it may be nice to recycle. But if it costs you more in dollars and time than the value of what you protect, how does that honor God? In fact, one wonders if the effort to recycle some items actually increases overall damage to the planet. 

To be sure not every decision can be or should be seen in dollars and cents, but certainly it must play an important part because economics is really about resource management. I was also disappointed that the authors didn’t consider how the immorality and godlessness in parts of the world affected their environmental condition. Scripture is replete with stories of how the land suffered not because of poor farming practices but because the people failed to be honest etc. One need only think of the corruption rampant in many African countries to see how corruption has environmental effects. I think Christians need to be cautious of adopting a deistic view of God when we discuss environmental issues. 

Certainly much more can be said on this important topic. I would just conclude by noting that the subject merits a deeper conversation. Additionally, I would add a reminder that many people who do not accept the theory of global warming may be good environmentalists and care for it. The issue is not whether we should care for God’s creation, but how such care should be administered.

Stephen M. Vantassel is a tutor of theology at King’s Evangelical Divinity School. He specializes in environmental-theology. His latest book delves into the animal use and animal rights debate.

How NOT to Catch a Mouse

I was very disappointed when I saw the October 2010 issue of Men's Health Magazine. In their How to Do Everything Better column was an article entitled "Catch A Mouse---Alive!" p. 84. The article describes in cartoon column fashion how to use pencils, peanut butter, packing tape, section of cardboard, and a bowl to capture a mouse.

Whether the technique works or not, I don't know. My hunch is that its efficacy is at best subject to numerous misfires. The problem with the article lies in its suggestion to translocate the mouse 100 feet away from the house. While such advice is to be expected from the advisor (a PETA member), no mention was made regarding the likely trauma would be experienced by the mouse that has just been transported away from its winter cache. The suggestion to release the mouse is another example of "feel good" advice trumping true compassion. You may think that a chance of survival beats a  certain death sentence but evidence from the translocation of other species strongly suggests that translocation of mice is actually quite cruel (consult http://icwdm.org for details).

Whether you are convinced or not about the humanness of mouse-translocation, the environmental argument is unquestionable. House mice (Mus musculus) is an invasive species in the U.S.. House mice were not original inhabitants of the country and their introduction (likely accidental) is detrimental to human-health and safety as well as native species. House mice should never be moved; they should be killed. They don't belong in the U.S. House mice are responsible for significant damage to crops and structures. On islands, their impact is more noticeable (at least it has been studied more) is also significant.

Hopefully in the future, the editors of Men's Health will provide scientifically and environmentally sound advice to their readers rather than the stooping to the desires of sentimentality; nature deserves better treatment. Just as you don't give cotton candy to a kid just because it will make him feel good, we shouldn't translocate house mice. After all someone has to be the adult.

Resources to Consult
Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in the United States
Author(s): David Pimentel, Lori Lach, Rodolfo Zuniga, Doug MorrisonSource: BioScience, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 53-65Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological SciencesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1313688Accessed: 18/10/2010 22:24. Article describes house mice as invasive.

Mice, Rats, and People: The Bio-Economics of Agricultural Rodent Pests Author(s): Nils Chr Stenseth, Herwig Leirs, Anders Skonhoft, Stephen A. Davis, Roger P. Pech, Harry P. Andreassen, Grant R. Singleton, Mauricio Lima, Robert S. Machang'u, Rhodes H. Makundi, Zhibin Zhang, Peter R. Brown, Dazhao Shi, Xinrong Wan Source: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 1, No. 7 (Sep., 2003), pp. 367-375
Published by: Ecological Society of America. Paper discusses impacts and ways to improve control of a variety of species for S.E. Asia.

House Mouse by Robert Timm in Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Editors, Scott E. Hygnstrom, Robert M. Timm, Gary E. Larson. 1994. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 2 vols.
Article provides a quick review of damage to both crops and human structures.

Stephen M. Vantassel is an expert in wildlife damage management and a frequent critic of the animal rights protest industry for it anti-environmental stance. You can read his latest book Dominion over Wildlife (see image at left) which discusses the arguments used by Christian animal rights activists.

Euthanasia and Wildlife Control Operators

Euthanasia (which means Good Death) is technically defined as a technique that causes the death of an animal while it is unconscious. For instance, drowning would not be euthanasia because the animal would be aware of its dying. But who decides what methods meet the standard? One commonly appealed to group is the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)which has created guidelines that have been revised over the years. The AVMA guidelines is also a favorite of animal rights groups.

At this point you may wonder how all this impacts wildlife control. The answer is that animal rights groups have been trying to use cruelty laws written for domestic animals to apply to the capture and control of wildlife. Since some states have laws/regulations stating that wildlife control operators kill wildlife in a humane way, animal rights groups have the potential to bring lawsuits against wildlife control operators for using euthanizing techniques not allowed by the AVMA. Thankfully, animal rights groups have been generally unsuccessful in getting the legal system to apply domestic animal laws on wildlife, but if cultural trends continue, this situation will likely change.

Recently, the National Wildlife Control Operators Association was successful in publishing the results of a review panel on euthanasia techniques suitable for wildlife control operators. While the article lacks the depth of the AVMA panel reviews, this publication is a first step in creating guidelines from an industry perspective.

You can read this article entitled "Euthanasia methods in field settings for wildlife damage management" by Timothy J. Julien, Stephen M. Vantassel, Scott R. Groepper, and Scott E. Hygnstrom for yourself.

Stephen M. Vantassel was a professional wildlife control operator and now provides wildlife control information to the public at the Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management. He is also the author of

Israel and Possible Fur Ban

National Public Radio recently related a story about efforts of animal rights protest industry advocates to get Israel to ban fur. You can read the story at Israel Fur Ban


It has created somewhat of an uproar as the ban will be a significant issue for Orthodox Jews who have the tradition of wearing a fur cap. My understanding of the tradition is that the wearing of a fur cap represents the kingliness of the wearer, who on the Sabbath remembers to rest as the LORD commanded.

Of course the animal rights protest industry advocates point to Jewish tradition that forbids cruelty to animals, suggesting that the production of fur is somehow a violation of that tradition. This argument is similar to the same kind of legal nonsense employed by so-called Constitutional attorneys who claim that the death penalty was/is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. What makes the argument so egregious is its revisionist understanding of history. How could the death penalty be anti-constitutional when the founding fathers believed in its use? Likewise, how could the production of fur be cruel when Jews who wrote the tradition were involved in various forms of animal use?

But who cares about the facts? Animal rights protest industry advocates know how easy it is get a hot country with a small minority of fur wearers to marginalize "others" in the name of fake-morality. I propose that Nebraska ban ice houses. Everyone knows how dangerous they are when the weather gets warm. Do you think I can get this legislation passed?

Stephen Vantassel is the author of Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (Wipf and Stock, 2009). He also believes that animal rights poses almost as a great a threat to the environment as the hungry bull dozer.

Dominion over Wildlife: Book Review by Rolf Bouma

Rolf Bouma of the University of Michigan published a review of Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (Wipf and Stock, 2009) in the March 2010 issue of ASA Perspectives in Science you can read his review at
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Book%20Reviews2005-/3-10.html#Vantassel

As seems to happen so frequently with readers of my book, Bouma simply misses the point.

Here is my response which was finally published in the September issue of the Journal. I sent a copy of my response to Rolf Bouma in early April, 2010, but never received a response.

I appreciated Dr. Rolf Bouma’s willingness to review my book, Dominion Over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (Wipf and Stock, 2009) published in the March 2010 issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (p.62). Reviews constitute a gift of time and as such are to be treated with respect.

By the same token, reviewers have a responsibility to be sure their comments are accurate and in accordance with the goals of the book under review. Unfortunately, some of Dr. Bouma’s statements failed to inform readers of the contours of my argument as well as the volume of evidence presented in support of my view on human-wildlife relations. I will highlight a few examples. First, he insinuated that I was unfair by calling my description of the Christian animal rights position, a “caricature.” That is quite a claim given that I engaged the Christian animal rights activists’ evidentiary appeal to three separate intellectual domains, namely Scripture, ethics, and science. In which section(s) did I mischaracterize their view? Unfortunately, Dr. Bouma did not say nor did he provide one specific instance. Second, his assertion that I failed to appreciate Linzey’s “the greater serves the lesser” argument completely missed the point of my findings (which involved a detailed analysis of his interpretation of Scripture), namely that Scripture provides no support for such a position. In fact, I go to great lengths to show that Christ, the perfect example of what it means to be a Godly and obedient human, never served animals in a manner Linzey suggests. Third, Dr. Bouma’s final paragraph leaves the reader with the impression that my Shepherdist position does not countenance limits on the human use of animals (despite mentioning previously of my support for protecting species viability). Such is clearly not the case as anyone who reads the final chapter would understand (cf. p.172). I contend that Christians are obligated to treat animals in a way appropriate to their owner, namely Christ. Ultimately Dr. Bouma’s suggestion that I engage the thought of Rolston’s theocentric view failed to consider that if my exegesis, ethical reasoning, and use of scientific evidence was correct, then obedience to God’s will as revealed in Scripture and nature is about as theocentric of a view any Christian could hope to obtain.

Regrettably, Dr. Bouma seemed to have been caught up in reacting to theological labels rather than assessing my treatment of the Biblical evidence, the only infallible source for Christian doctrine. Maybe that is why he considered my book more of an apologia rather than a theology. Apparently, he skipped chapter 1 (p.14f), where I explained why the book focused on the consumptive uses of wildlife on account of a. it avoid anachronisms and speculation because the bible mentions on these activities, and b. if humanity’s consumptive use of wildlife violates God’s perfect will, as the Christian animal rights activists claim, then a whole host of human uses of animals are in danger of being immoral as well. To my knowledge, very few environmental-theologies provide such a sustained review of the morality of a concrete, real-world practice (i.e. hunting, trapping, and fishing) followed by suggestions on how Scripture’s answer to consumptive use of wildlife may provide guidance on how humans should utilize the environment. Dr. Bouman certainly has a right to disagree with my evaluation of Scripture, ethics, and science (the last of which he offered no comment), I just wish he took the time to provide some concrete examples of where he saw error.

Stephen M. Vantassel

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Nature & Nurture by Brad Woodson: A Review by Stephen Vantassel

Nature & Nurture: The Art and Science of Living the Good Life (Mustang, OK: Tate Publishing & Enterprises, 2009) by Brad Woodson asks readers to evaluate their lives from the perspective of an ecologist. Just as an ecologist seeks to learn what is required to make an organism thrive in an environment, Brad Woodson (a Certified Wildlife Biologist) presents a model for readers to appreciate what the Good Life is and how they can achieve it.

Brad opens the book discussing the stages of life and how each of those stages presents its own challenges and opportunities for growth. In chapter 2, Brad exhorts readers to discover their personality type. For it is by self-understanding that we can learn how to recognize our strengths and improve our weaknesses. Brad's suggestion that life be divided into 10 spheres, (faith, family, charity, fitness, finance etc.) constitutes the heart of the book. He has a scorecard by which to evaluate how balanced your life is in those 10 areas. Areas of weakness should be strengthened by learning to avoid negative influences and instituting personal discipline. Thankfully, Brad doesn't say the process of personal growth is easy. In fact, he suggests that today's citizens are bombarded with significantly more negative influences than those of our grand parents living in the 1920's. Brad isn't making excuses for us. He simply wants us to recognize the fact that just as our genetics affect who we become, so does our environment. We may not be able to change our genetics, but we certainly have influence on our environment.

Three things struck me about this book. First, it was remarkably brief. A normal reader could easily finish it in an hour. In today's hectic times, brief is always appreciated, particularly when the material is worthy of reading as Brad's book is. Second, I liked his virtue-based approach to living the good life. His book is about pursuing the good, the beautiful, and the lovely; not the get rich quick, how to be famous, or how to win through intimidation. Finally, I was intrigued by a couple of his comments (aside from the wonderful use of thoughtful quotes). The first one was his mentioning of politics as one of the 10 spheres of our lives. He was the first modern writer on personal growth that I can recall which mentioned the importance of political involvement. You may not agree, but you should think about it. The other key comment that struck me was his answer to those who say, "I can't be successful because I didn't have the advantages that the rich kid down the street had." His answer is both sensitive and strikingly insightful as he properly observed that having too many advantages can be a hindrance to success as being disadvantaged.

If you are looking for a book to help reorient your perception of your life and provide some tips on how to get back on track to what really matters, then I would suggest reading this book.

Stephen Vantassel, CWCP, ACP 

Cat Doors

Those who know me, know that I oppose the tradition of free-range cats on environmental grounds. I believe the evidence shows that free-range house cats are an environmental menace, but for some reason owners and those who don't claim ownership, think that cats have some sort of God-given or Darwinian right to roam free to ravage the countryside.

I don't hate cats. I own two of them; one rescued from a divorcing couple; the other from a pound. But unlike other owners, I don't let my cats roam outside. They are indoor cats and interestingly enough, they are doing quite well.

Anyway, my point today involves the quest by free-range owners to have a catdoor that allows cats and only cats to enter the house whenever they want. Traditional doors are problematic because other animals, like opossums and raccoons, can use these doors too.

Electronic doors normally use a collar that signals the door to unlock. The idea being, the cat's collar will act as a passkey thereby preventing unauthorized animals from entering. Unfortunately, I haven't heard of a door that is strong enough to keep out raccoons. Raccoons don't care about the collar and simply pry open the door and enter.

I recently learned of another electronic door, "The Pet Porte" that is signaled by a microchip in the cat. This device offers the advantage of not requiring a collar on the cat, which I guess some owners think is too burdensome for the cat. That is all well and good. My question stands as "Is this door strong enough to prevent raccoon entry?" I have contacted the company. I'll let you know what I have learned.

In the meantime, I would love to hear from anyone who has heard of a cat door that is strong enough to prevent raccoon entry. Even though I am against free-range cats, owners should be protected against wildlife entry.

Stephen Vantassel, CWCP, ACP

Review Article on Andrew Linzey's Why Animal Suffering Matters

Those of you who have followed my career are well aware of my long standing critique of Andrew Linzey's understanding of Christianity and animals. I have just published a review article of his latest book Why Animal Suffering Matters in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. I welcome your comments.

Stephen M. Vantassel, CWCP, ACP

Review of Diversity and Dominion: Dialogues in Ecology, Ethics, and Theology by Kyle S. Van Houtan

According to the introduction, Diversity and Dominion is the fruit of a series of inter-disciplinary lectures which took place at Duke Divinity School in 2005. The motivation behind the lectures was the belief that purely descriptive science is inadequate to protect the environment from continued degradation. What society needs it the coupling of the descriptive elements of science with the motivational power of human-attitudes and values. Since human beliefs encompass a broad range of ideas, the lectures, and resulting articles, centered on Christian beliefs in the American context.

Space doesn't permit comments on every article, I have focused on a few articles deemed to be the most significant.

William H. Schlesinger's article, Eyes Wide Shut, decries the lack of urgency in the contemporary environmental movement. He blames our passivity on a continually "shifting baseline." Like the proverbial camel, every concession to expanding urbanization is minimized as "it's just an acre" that when seen over time becomes vast swaths of land.

Lisa Sideris attempts to harmonize the role of suffering and death within evolutionary development with Christianity's view of redemption and individual significance. Put another way, "How can a good God allow so many creatures to die (as Evolution teaches) for no apparent reason?" Sideris suggests two options: 1. the ecosystem is greater than the sum of the individual creatures within it and 2. humans should be humble and recognize that our concerns and judgments should not be the final word on environmental and environmental ethical issues.

Norman Wirzba identifies the vice of ingratitude as the reason for our continued neglect and abuse of the environment. He notes that years of environmental teaching have failed to produce proper motivation to act on what we know. More importantly, he provides a suggestion as to how schools can work to inculcate gratitude amongst our students.

Finally, Michael Northcott accuses Millennial theology for its anti-environmental views. As the most strident of all the articles, readers, particularly those within the Christian Right, should be prepared for a host of critical words. As a Christian, with Conservative political views, I was disappointed at Northcott's simplistic treatment of the adherents of Millennial theology. This is not say that his accusations are completely wrong as I have personally heard comments like, "Why worry about the environment, Jesus is coming soon." However, it is to say that Northcott would have been more convincing if he confronted the thought of the Acton Institute which shares many of the ideas held by Millennialists. I consider myself a rather radical environmentalist (my modest proposal is to ban the construction of new roads), however, I know that liberals are not innocent of loving big corporations (just ask Hollywood, Harvard, Yale, and most universities). The only difference is that liberals love different corporations than conservatives. It seems to me that answer lies in the Christian notion of personal responsibility. Systems may reduce evil behavior, but evil people can always manipulate the system. The answer still lies in a regenerated heart.

While elements of this book are worthy of engagement, its value was ultimately hindered by trying to address too many diverse ideas (most of which are too abstract to apply) and failing to engage Christians with alternative visions of environmental protection and use. Speaking of the latter issue, the writers of this volume essentially espoused the same mantra: capitalism is evil, the world has too many people, and humanity should stop seeing itself as separate from creation. Perhaps most disheartening was discovering how their appeal to theology was bereft of solid Scriptural reflection and practical application. Encouraging the recognition of guilt for wrongful deeds is important. But without practical ways to 1. Be forgiven that guilt and 2. Demonstrate improved behavior with concrete benchmarks, readers are left with feeling bad and with no hope.

Stephen M. Vantassel, author of Dominion over Wildlife: An Environmental Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (Wipf and Stock, 2009) is an environmental-theologian who is also an expert in wildlife damage management. He is a tutor of theology at King's Evangelical Divinity School in the U.K.

Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit

I normally don't read novels. Right or wrong, my attitude is why bother reading fiction when there is plenty of non-fiction reading to do. But a doctoral student and friend at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln wanted me to read this book because it had such a big impact on him. So I agreed to do so.
Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit by Daniel Quinn (ISBN 0-553-37540-7) is a story about a man who answers ad which reads "Teacher seeks pupil. Must have an earnest desire to save the world. Apply in person." The guy arrives to the location to find a large gorilla. The gorilla can talk and leads the man through a process to help him understand how mankind fell into the trap of destroying the planet.

I am almost at the book's midpoint and wanted to provide a brief review of the text. On an artistic level, the book is rather interesting. Unlike the Planet of the Apes, the ape in this book doesn't hate or want to enslave people. Instead the Ape wants to teach humans how to save the planet. The Ape leads his pupil through a thought exercise to help the human understand how things got this way.

First, the Ape invites the human to think about the cultural myth that blinds him to the problem. Core elements of the myth are  1. humans are the pinnacle of evolution (creation isn't permitted), 2. the planet is for mankind, 3. that the problems with the planet is because there is something wrong with humans, and 4. facts are different from values in that facts can never prove values. All four of these ideas are mistaken and leading humans down the wrong path according to this Ape.

What I find interesting about this book is that it diametrically opposes the teaching of Scripture. Let's look at the elements in parallel. 1. Bible says humans are the pinnacle of creation (Genesis 1). 2. The Bible says the planet was made for mankind (Genesis 1-2; Psalm 8). 3. The Bible does teach that there is something wrong with humans, it is sin in that we have rebelled against God (Genesis 3 and the teachings of Christ). 4. Interestingly, Scripture would agree that the fact-value split is over played. However, the reason for the split is due to humanity's willing rebellion and subsequent denial of the Creator. Paul says humans suppress the knowledge of God and therefore fall into great moral evil (Romans 1).

In summary, Christians should recognize that key elements of the doctrine of creation are under assault because non-Christians believe that those doctrines have encouraged humans to abuse the planet. Plenty of articles have demonstrated that self-professing Christians (I hasten to point out that plenty of people call themselves Christian because they believe their religion is a genetic heritage) are not alone in harming the earth. Even Buddhist and Hindu lands have a poor record (Dr. Robert Wright has an excellent article on this. Find it at the American Scientific Affiliation website). The ultimate point I want to make is that Christians must understand that this anti-christian story is what is feeding the actions of many so-called environmentalists. We must understand their story in order to have a proper answer.

I will have more on the book in the future.

Stephen M. Vantassel is a tutor of theology at King's Evangelical Divinity School and author of Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (Wipf and Stock, 2009). 
 
I welcome book submissions. Contact me at King's Evangelical Divinity School or through my website.