soil-conservation-people-religion-and-land.pdf - South West NRM

Certainly the earth and thus man, would benefit greatly if
the organized conservationists and church-goers could combine
forces on this central issue. The third group referred to
earlier, the humanists, may have more in common with the
Church's stance on man/land relationships, if their views on
land tenure are compared. For instance, Stott 's
interpretation of Leviticus 25 as limiting man to the status
of "temporary residents", is very similar to the
often-repeated assertion by land-use specialists (Roberts,
1984), that all landholders should behave as "temporary
trustees" of the communities resources. Kleinig (1986)
brings considerable biblical support to bear on this view of
ownership. As Stott poifits out, dominion is not a synonym
for destruction, but his papal quote that "the right to
private property is subordinated to the right to common
(public) use", seems to be seldom included in modern
Christian statements on man's responsibility for the
environment. This matter is explained in detail in the
writer's paper ",Hw free is freehold?" (Roberts, 1985) in
which our responsibility to future generations, rather than
to the creation or the ecosystem, is argued for.
The section of Stott's work subtitled "The Conservation
Debate" reflects some of the Church's dilemma of what its
correct position on environmental issues is. Branches of
Christianity have responded differently to this inescapable '
challenge to the Church. It is the writer's view that
embracing the concept of social ecology, not ecological or
social issues as if they were unconnected, would greatly
enhance the Church's opportunity of making a real impact on
this aspect of the human condition. When wrestling with this
question the Church of England referred to earthly
destruction as blasphemy and, according to Stott, "a sin
against God as well as man". "Is it or isn't it?", is the
question which the Australian Churches must ask themselves
today. If it is, the silent Church is failing in its
calling.
The theological debate about biblical interpretation
including both etymology and context of the original wording,
fails to convince either thinking believers or others, that
the church has accepted and preached a stwardship role as a
clear statement of faith. A l l the evidence leads us to
accept the criticism that the Church has not developed and
articulated an ethic relating man to the environment. If the
"others" in our "doing unto others" could include other
factors in our ecosystem, we may yet have a future on this
planet.
Man's cleverness has outstripped his wisdom. This statement
is at the crux of our problem, namely man's lack of vision to
be able to use his awesome technological pmer for his best
long term good. As Ghandi pointed out, the earth provides
enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's
greed. In an age when the technocrats are failing to display
the wisdom required for survival, the Church is challenged to
provide the perspective and vision to ensure man's future on