Looking at the Outskirts

From a distance, we can often hardly see the skyscrapers in the urban landscape of my city. What should be a beautiful skyline is shrouded by haze. This kind of air pollution is primarily caused by vehicular emissions, burning waste, and industrial activities. Unfortunately, this situation has been a prevalent challenge across major Asian cities for decades.¹ Amid this situation lies the sorrowful reality that aside from its impacts on humans, this pollution also makes life difficult for other creatures in our ecosystem. Their plight, however, remains largely overlooked.²

As Asian countries continue to face more environmental challenges, policies are being formed to address these issues while also allowing for sustainable economic growth. Yet significant questions concerning human responsibility towards nonhuman creation remain. What basis do we have for asserting that humans are responsible for caring for the natural world? Is it morally justifiable to prioritize the well-being of nonhuman creation solely because of their utility to us? Doesn’t this purely utilitarian perspective capture the mindset that has historically driven environmental exploitation?

Christian theologians are seeking to find biblical themes and principles that may shape our perception and action toward the environment. Specifically, they seek an ethical model that moves away from anthropocentric utilitarianism—the idea that we should prioritize what is good for people over everything else.³

Faith and Environment

Concerning creation care, Athena Gorospe offers an evangelical Christian perspective in her “God’s Story of Life: Themes for an Asian Creation Care Ethics.4” This essay draws upon previous work in which Gorospe laid out her concern for establishing a biblical paradigm for environmental ethics. She argues that the way we treat the world affects our identity as God’s people:

To be indifferent to the suffering caused by our destructive attitudes to the ecosystems that support and sustain our life on the planet is not only a mark of folly, but it also imperils our Christian witness since it opens us to the accusation that Christianity, with its dominion theology, has caused or contributed greatly to the ecological crisis and that Christians are insensitive to needs outside our own ‘church’ concerns.⁵

Some Christians have used Genesis 2:26-28 as a license to abuse the environment. Environmental stewardship became anthropocentric because many believe that humans are above all other creatures. We think we can exploit our world without restraint for personal benefit. In addition, some contend that the concept of stewardship implies that nonhuman entities rely entirely on human intervention for their well-being and growth.⁶

A Shared Existence

Gorospe suggests moving beyond the conventional stewardship model by revisiting the biblical motif of life. This theme offers an alternative approach to formulating a Christian ethical framework for creation care. It also resonates closely with the Asian context, where a profound respect for life is woven into most religions and cultures.⁷

A number of biblical claims about the sanctity of all life forms emerge in Gorospe’s discussion. First, there is a sense of continuity between humans and animals because they have a single source of life. Genesis 1:20-21 describes both of them as “living beings.”⁸ Second, despite the uniqueness of humanity’s role, the ascription of ‘goodness’ encompasses every created being. ‘Goodness’ is not exclusive to humans but applies to all, emphasizing an inherent value that extends to nonhuman creation as well. Such value is rooted in the telos of all creation; everything was made to exalt the majesty of our creator, praising him for who he is and what he has done.

Finally, God has designated the earth as a shared abode for every living being inhabiting it. No one can assert exclusive ownership over it. It is intended to be a place where life can collectively flourish and thrive. Thus, environmental degradation undermines the well-being of all, including ourselves. This notion of commonality and interdependence among creation establishes our moral responsibility to the environment.

Rest and Restoration

Gorospe also underscores God’s care for nonhuman life by highlighting that even the land and animals are to observe the Sabbath (Lev 25:1–7). The people of Israel are to trust that God will provide for their sustenance and growth even while the land is resting. It should also be noted that God sent his people to exile so that the land could rest (2 Chr 36:21). This further underscores that God will hold his image-bearers accountable for how they treat nonhuman life.

Moreover, the renewal of creation after the flood and the vision of restoration for the land of Israel also signify the sanctity of life (Gen 8:18-9:17; Isa 54:9). They illustrate that despite the effects of sin, God is committed to breathing new life into his creation. These forms of divine intervention will culminate when “creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (Rom 8:21).

Our Role in Our Father’s World

Gorospe offers a brief overview of the troubling current ecological conditions across many Asian nations. She calls for us to seek cultural and religious values that could help us move away from detrimental behaviors that contribute to ongoing environmental degradation. Addressing environmental issues shouldn’t solely fall on the shoulders of governments. It is a global challenge that even religious groups are called to engage. Gorospe’s essay suggests that Christian communities in Asia have access to a resource they rarely tap: a robust theology of life that offers a vision of humans contributing to the flourishing of the whole creation.

Gorospe does an excellent job helping us understand why Christians in Asia should care about these issues. As she notes, our concern shouldn’t primarily revolve around our present and future needs for survival. Rather, we should care because this is the task given to us by the Giver of life. Each creature is a note of praise for God’s majesty and glory. After all, this is our Father’s world. “Creation care,” then, “is seen as an expression of love for the Lord who owns the earth. Because Christ is Lord over all creation, the gospel is not just for people, but the whole creation.” ⁹

Tano is right: focusing on the theological meaning behind these titles during sermons and Bible studies can be very helpful for Filipino Christians. These titles, taken together, paint a rich and well-rounded picture of Christ’s life and ministry. However, it’s important not to treat each theme in isolation. Think of them as parts of a bridge built across the seasons. Each title can be emphasized in different situations and contexts to highlight a specific aspect of Christ’s character and work, without ever losing the bigger picture.

I highly recommend reading Gorospe’s essay and the book in its entirety as a valuable resource for engaging Christian theology and ethics.

C. Paul Mojica is a faculty member at the Center for Biblical Studies – Institute and Seminary. Since 2009, he has been serving as a Pastor-Elder of FCF-Baguio Mission Centre in Baguio City, Philippines. He contributes to collaborative works in philosophy and serves as an editor at Wise Ideas Publishing Co. Paul and his wife, Pauline, have been homeschooling their children, Paull Amos and Psalm Ayla. He is currently pursuing PhD in Theological Studies with AGST.