`Christian Zoos' and Green Christians
It is always interesting to discover how Christianity is perceived by our contemporaries. A `Talking Point' article by Colin Tudge in New Scientist (13 April 1991, 8) provided some thought-provoking material. The short article was stimulated by controversy surrounding the announcement that the London Zoo had a severe financial crisis and was under threat of closure. Tudge chose the eye-catching title: `In defence of Christian zoos'.
We have often argued that the Christian Faith has provided a supportive environment for the development of science. The explanation has been that the doctrine of God's providence is foundational for good science: the government of this universe is not by whim, but according to an intelligent and dependable plan. The early christian scientists had the right presuppositions to make progress, and they were highly motivated by a desire to worship God in their studies. Colin Tudge notes that there was a connection between `Christian Europe' and the `final consolidation of thought and experiment'represented by the rise of science. He considers that the `essence of the argument . . . is that Christianity, more than any other religion, is hands-on'. We are not passive philosophers, but activists - who put theory into practice. We are not only hearers of the Word, but also doers.
The London Zoo fiasco has stimulated an interesting debate on the purpose of keeping animals in captivity. It has been argued, on the one hand, that `traditional' Christian perspectives are to blame for perpetuating the view that man is lord and master of creation. Thus, it might be inferred, keeping animals in cages demonstrates our dominion over them and allows us to feel superior. A more healthy way of thinking about the environment, according to this line of argument, would be to adopt the Buddhist belief in the unity of nature and to advocate policies promoting harmony. Tudge considers this reasoning to be specious and declares `the welfare of animals in captivity must be foremost in the minds of all curators'. Furthermore, he argues that countries where Buddhist beliefs are dominant do not have a good record on conservation, and they appear to lack the motivation to do anything about the problems faced by endangered species.
-
`In this context, the passivity of Buddhism (and other Eastern religions)
turns out to be a handicap. We have driven all these animals to the brink
of disaster, and we must take their affairs in hand if we are to
make up for what we have done. Hindus revere cattle, but they do not feed
them. In Buddhist Japan, cranes symbolise freedom and all things good; but
feeding-grounds of the flesh-and-blood variety have been laid waste. Those
who want other creatures to live must do more than meditate'.
There has been a tendency towards pietism among evangelical christians. We have taken the command to be separate from the world and used it to justify non-involvement with social, political and environmental concerns. We have been happier wrestling with issues in our minds without venturing forth to work for change. Yet this is not the true spirit of Christianity. Christ's disciples have a mission to be witnesses to him and his truth in every corner of the world and in every sphere of life. Because this world belongs to God and not to the Evil One, we must not opt out of the hard problems of stewarding the Earth's physical resources and caring for its diverse life forms. The so-called creation mandate The Bible (Genesis chapter 1 verse 28) places an obligation on man to care for and preserve God's creation (as in Genesis chapter 2 verse 15), and this mandate is enriched, not abolished, by the coming of Christ. How do we work out these principles? Colin Tudge's emphasis on the pragmatic character of the Christian Way is a challenge to us all. We will not be able to solve all the problems of the world, but maybe, with prayer and effort, we can achieve something to express the Lordship of Christ in the world in which we live?
David J. Tyler (1991)
