Thank you for your encouraging words.

darrow

I live in a university community where such open and thoughtful communication should be more common. The Uganda issue has been berated by liberal radio personalities who have attempted to connect that indigenous legislative initiative to American evangelicals and conservative politicians.

Yours is the most thoughtful response I have seen.

You’re doing a great work!

John

Thank you for your thoughtful response to the third part of Great Commission Utilitarianism. First let me state that I am not a scientist or economist. I am a layman who loves ideas and particularly one who has focused his lifework on the intersection on worldview and development or culture and poverty. From time to time I will bring my understanding of worldview into the disciples of art, politics, economics, healthcare or some of the burning issues of the day.

You wrote “Where would you locate ecological economists like Herman Daly, Lester Brown, etc. in your taxonomy? How compatible do you think their vision is with yours?”

To the extent that the quotes you refer to reflect the ideas of Daly and Brown, we would have significant correspondence in our views. While I have used some of Brown’s statistic in research, I have not read either of these men to judge if they function from an open or closed system model. My guess would be, because they are concerned for the environment they are functioning from a moral frame. So in terms of this four quadrant model, I have not studied Daly and Brown sufficiently to know where I might place them.

For more of our own understanding you may want to read the little book that Scott Allen and I wrote entitled: The Forest in the Seed: A Biblical Perspective on Resources and Development. This can be purchased in a paper format from the DNA bookstore: http://www.disciplenations.org/store-catalog?MAJOR=Books&MINOR=standard or freely downloaded from our website: http://www.disciplenations.org/books_download.

Let me take a few moments and respond to the paper that you sent Anti-Environmentalism as “Christian Heresy.” The “Gnostic heresy,” in its modern manifestation is what I would call Evangelical Gnosticism [EG]. I have written extensively on this in the book Discipling Nations: The Power of Truth to Transform Culture. I would not say that this movement, which sadly defines much of modern Evangelical, Charismatic and Pentecostal thinking, is so much “anti-environmental” as it is non-environmental. Like their Greek forerunners, this movement separates sacred from secular, grace from nature and thus does not speak with prophetic voice to all of life. Authors like Hal Lindsey The Late Great Planet Earth (1970) and Tim Lahaye’s Left Behind Series have influenced two or perhaps three generations of Christians to disengage from culture, the world and concern for creation.

If we were to another quadrant graphic, as we did in GCU # 3, we would have two axis forming four quadrants. One axis could be labeled “growth” – “no-growth,” the second could be labeled “stewardship” – “rape.” The rape-growth quadrant would reflect conspicuous consumption. There is no moral framework for how one gains or uses resources. The second would be rape-no growth and leads to increased poverty of all kinds – environmental, economic, etc. The third would be stewardship-no growth. For me this would speak of conservation (good) but no progress (bad). And, the way I see things, this would in fact not be Biblical stewardship which requires conservation-progression. The fourth quadrant would be defined by growth and stewardship. This would reflect, what I believe, is the Biblical model. This stewardship requires both progress and conservation. There is a moral ecology that creates a framework for both eco-logy and eco-nomics. This quadrant allows for the growth of wealth and culture but in a framework where people ask moral questions – “Ought we to do it?” not just pragmatic questions – “Can we do it?”

You have written “Do you believe that there are any limits to the extent to which human-made resources can be substituted for depleted natural resources?”

First, let me state clearly that natural resources are to be wisely used. They are not to be pillaged as we do in so much of the world (West, East and South). Second, what we call natural resources, would not exist if it were not for moral imagination. Animals who are not the image of God do not have the imag[e]-ination to discover the things that God has hidden in creation. Third, in the area of wealth creation, natural resources – environmental capital is important, but it is not the only capital available. There is human capital, social capital, moral capital, intellectual capital, artistic capital, and etc. Often the intangible capital is more important than physical capital to build healthy lives, communities and societies. Again, please see our book Forest in the Seed. Also, for more on this, the chapters on stewardship and the open system in the book Discipling Nations will be helpful.

Well Steven, there is so much more to reflect on with you, but we have run into finiteness.

darrow

Where would you locate ecological economists like Herman Daly, Lester Brown, etc. in your taxonomy? How compatible do you think their vision is with yours?

Resources are only limited by imagination and moral stewardship.

Do you believe that there are any limits to the extent to which human-made resources can be substituted for depleted natural resources? This is an extremely important question to clarify, in my opinion, because all subsequent policy thinking hinges on one’s answer to it.

Here are quotes from some of the best (IMO) “sustainability” thinkers that might suggest a degree of (unexpected?) closeness between your vision and theirs:

All of this [discussion of constraints such as finite energy, raw materials, capacities of waste sinks, etc.] does not mean economic value cannot continue to grow indefinitely. Indeed, we believe that perhaps it can if we define economic value in terms of the psychic flux of human satisfaction, and we learn to attain this satisfaction through nonmaterial means. Ecological economics does not call for an end to economic development, merely to physical growth, while mainstream economists’ definitions of economic progress confusingly conflate the two.

–Herman E. Daly and Joshua Farley, Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications, p. 64.

Social capital is “the relationships, networks and norms that facilitate collective action” (OECD, 2001), or the shared knowledge, understandings, and patterns of interactions that a group of people bring to any productive activity (Coleman, 1988, Putnam, 1993)…. Social capital constitutes the “glue” that holds our communities together…. The shared cognitive aspects of social capital help account for two unusual characteristics that differ from physical capital. First, social capital does not wear out upon being used more and more; and second, if unused, social capital deteriorates at a relatively rapid rate (Ostrom, 1993)…. It is not limited by material scarcity, meaning that its creative capacity is limited only by imagination. Consequently, it suggests a route toward sustainability, by replacing the fundamentally illogical model of unlimited growth ["growth" in this context meaning production that relies on depletion of natural capital and increase in physical waste, SJ] within a finite world with one of unlimited complexity, not bound by the availability of material resources. However, social capital also has limitations which other forms of capital do not. It cannot be created instantly….[it] takes time to develop…. It is also fragile and subject to erosion not only by direct assault but more importantly, by neglect, if there are many or strong competitors for investment of emotional significance or time.

–Mark Roseland, Toward Sustainable Communities, revised edition, pp. 9-10.

Steven Johnson

Tim @ DNA

I have read all five parts and enjoy every bit of them. May the next generation realize the arrogance and foolishness of their predecessors and turn the tide.

Thanks for your response. It is good to know the source of the quadrants concept. I have been using the exercise for a number of years to help me think through issues. While I had not consciously seen others use this before, it makes sense that others would because it is so helpful.

Currently, I am reflecting on another set to be marked by Biblical Wholism and Evangelical Gnosticism on one axis and the Christians concern for Stewardship of the environment.

Thanks again for your good input. It is very helpful

darrow

Tim