Abstracts of Contributed Posters

NAMES AND INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATIONS OF PRESENTERS

Dorothy Boorse, Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, Gordon College

Overpopulation: Ecological and Biblical Principles Concerning Limitation

Susan Power Bratton, Chair of Environmental Studies, Baylor University

The Precautionary Principle and the Book of Proverbs: Toward an Ethic of Ecological Prudence

in Ocean Management

John Davenport, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Fordham University

Asymmetric Ecocentric Ethics: The Judeo-Christian Environmental Philosophy

Thomas Dunlap, Professor, Department of History, Texas A&M University

Environmentalism as a Religion

Job Ebenezer, Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Engineering, Messiah College

George Washington Carver’s Vision of Sustainability and Some Examples of Sustainable

Technologies

David Faldet, Associate Professor, Department of English, Luther College

Coevolutionary Beginnings: Eden and Turtle Island

Pedro Hernandez, Professor, Humanities and Social Sciences Institute, State University of Puebla,

Puebla, Mexico

Community and Environment: A Christian Perspective

John Kok, Professor of Philosophy and Dean for the Humanities, Dordt College

Responsible Ecology: Knowing the Mind of God When it Comes to Environmental Studies

John Mizzoni, Ph.D., Lecturer in Ethics, Villanova University and Assistant Professor of Philosophy,

Neumann College

The Flux of Nature and Franciscan Biocentrism

Sarah Schmidt, Davidson College

Married to the Land: Wendell Berry’s Covenantal Land Ethic

Mark Stone, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Furman University

Ecological Reflections on Natural Places and Worship

G. Peter van Walsum, Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Studies, Baylor University

Transient Emergence of Waste Elimination Processes: The Development of Natural and

Engineered Closed-Loop Material Flows

Louke van Wensveen, Associate Professor, Department of Theological Studies, Loyola Marymount

University

Virtue and the Flux of Nature

Gregory Zuschlag, Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA

Inspecting the Historical, Biblical, and Ecological Fabric of Environmental Stewardship: A Case

of the Emperor’s New Clothes

ABSTRACTS OF POSTER PRESENTATIONS

(1) Dorothy Boorse, Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, Gordon College

Overpopulation: Ecological and Biblical Principles Concerning Limitation

[E-mail: dboorse@gordon.edu

]There is an increasing consensus among ecologists that global ecosystems are under strain from unsustainable consumption habits and human overpopulation. Central to this ecological understanding is a belief in the concept of limitation. However, there is no such consensus among many religious persons. Many Christians, for example, are uncomfortable with any discussion of overpopulation because of their concerns about undermining God's sovereignty and about supporting family planning policies they oppose. Furthermore, many Christians do not appear to believe that there are real natural laws and limitations that act on human populations as they act on other populations. Church teachings on this issue vary by group and reflect an ambivalence many feel. Consequently, Christian environmental ethicists do not always address human overpopulation as a root of environmental problems.

The separation of scientific information from the teaching in the church has caused the church to be a hindrance, rather than a help, in solving global issues. Here I describe three principles of ecology that come from the over‑arching concept of limitation: the Principles of Allocation, Optima, and Limiting Factors. I propose an integration of these scientific principles with three scriptural principles: balance, wisdom, and corporate responsibility. I conclude with suggestions for a population ethic that is scientifically sound, Biblical, and respectful of Judeo‑Christian values.

(2) Susan Power Bratton, Chair, Department of Environmental Studies, Baylor University

The Precautionary Principle and the Book of Proverbs: Toward an Ethic of Ecological

Prudence in Ocean Management

[E-mail: Susan_Bratton@Baylor.edu]

Recent catastrophes in environmental management, such as population collapses in oceanic fisheries, have led environmental activists and scholars to invoke the precautionary principle (PP). In its strong form, PP demands that no human-initiated change in an ecosystem be permitted unless it is certain it will do no harm; while, in its weak form, PP holds that where there is reason to believe that an action might be environmentally harmful, but since this is not known with certainty, regulators may, on best evidence, limit human activities to avoid major or damaging system perturbations. Implementing PP, however, presents epistemological, logical and practical difficulties. Rather than basing an ethic of prudence on a single principle, Judaism and Christianity have developed traditions of “wisdom,” which consist of collections of proverbs, wise sayings or case histories intended to guide the common person through the problems posed by everyday life. This paper develops models for a Christian ethic of ecological prudence, guided by the Biblical Wisdom Literature, including Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes. The management cases investigated include ecological uncertainty, inaccurate projections of scientific population models, scale-issues in large ecosystems, over-capitalization of fishing fleets, and displacement of folk fisheries. From the perspective of Biblical Wisdom, these cases concern the limits of knowledge, wisdom versus foolishness, greed, imprudent or speedy initiation of resource utilization, and disregard for community by ignoring the needs of poorer members. The Biblical process of discerning wise action by carefully weighing the risks to one’s household and community emphasizes caution in initiation of business ventures rather than demanding a guarantee of “no harm;” thus both encourages prudence and allows reasonable levels of resource harvest.

(3) John Davenport, Assistant Professor, Fordham University

Asymmetric Ecocentric Ethics: The Judeo-Christian Environmental Philosophy

[E-mail: Davenport@Fordham.edu

]I will argue that the central normative problem in environmental ethics

today has not been changed by the move from stability to flux models in

ecological science. This normative problem, which especially concerns

environmentalists in the Judeo‑Christian tradition, is the question of

whether human persons have a moral status of kind of intrinsic value that

differs from other parts of created nature, and if so, how human and

non‑human values are related.

There are two main answers to this central problem defended in recent

literature on environmental ethics. The first is represented by

"anthropocentric" theores which give human beings higher or (asymmetric)

moral status by portraying non‑human nature as either lacking in intrinsic

value altogether, or as having intrinsic value only by "projection" from

human attitudes and concerns (e.g. see Richard Watson and possibly Kristin

Schrader‑Frechette). The second answer is found in "ecocentric" theories,

which hold that non‑human nature has intrinsic value that does not simply

derive from human desires and attitudes, but which generally defend this

claim by arguing for value‑symmetry, i.e. denying that human persons have

(by constitution or essence) any higher importance or special moral status

relative to non‑human nature (e.g. see Arne Naess and Paul Taylor).

I will argue that these alternatives are not exhaustive, since there is a

third way. Regarding persons as having a distinctive kind of moral value,

which implies that human concerns will sometimes outweigh preserving

natural values, is compatible with regarding the values of nature as real

and non‑derivative, or not reducible to the attitudes of moral agents. I

will sketch out how to defend such an "asymmetric ecocentric ethics" and

argue that this approach provides the right framework for a Judeo‑Christian

environmental philosophy. I also think it is what Aldo Leopold intended.

Since this relates to the theme of the conference, I will also include some

discussion of humans as builders of an artificial human lifeworld (or

culture) and suggest that the distinction between nature and culture is

related to the value‑asymmetry preserved in my model.

(4) Thomas R. Dunlap, Professor, Department of History, Texas A&M University

Environmentalism as a Religion

[E-mail: t-dunlap@tamu.edu]

Analysis has usually taken conventional religious faiths as a measure against which people gauged their responsibilities toward the environment or asked what these faiths had to say about these responsibilities. We should see environmentalism, though, as a fundamentally religious response to the modern situation – taking religion in William James’ sense of our manner of accepting the universe. Many people accept its ecological perspective as a description of the world, humans’ place in it, and what (James again) humans must do to reach that “supreme good” of adjusting themselves to the order of the universe. Environmentalism functions as a secular– and unacknowledged– faith, a variant of the civic religion of human reason that displaced conventional supernatural creeds as the carrier of religious sentiment and became the ground for action in Western culture. The environmental movement speaks to religious needs in many ways. It finds in wilderness a sacred space and in the wilderness journey a pilgrimage and setting for a spiritual quest. It takes Aldo Leopold’s land ethic as a guide to right living. It shows how to practice virtue in ways as mundane as recycling and as radical as bioregionalism. Environmental philosophy describes the movement’s beliefs in terms the culture accepts and reconciles its perspective with the conventional one. This paper places the religious impulse within environmentalism within the framework of secular beliefs and discusses the movement’s relationship to the environmental action of conventional religious faiths.

(5) Job Ebenezer, Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Engineering, Messiah College

George Washington Carver’s Vision of Sustainability and Some Examples of Sustainable

Technologies

[E-mailjbeneze@messiah.edu]

The United Nations (UN) report entitled "Our Common Future" introduced the concept of sustainable development to the world of politicians, economists, international development workers and religious community in 1987. The United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) convened in 1992 brought together both government representatives and the non governmental agencies in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to further develop this concept of global sustainability and to implement appropriate actions worldwide. Recently, several secular organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists recognize the importance of religious communities in the discussions and practices of global sustainability. Increasingly, many scientists are realizing the need for applying moral values in dealing with the environment. They also recognize the fact the environmental degradation problem cannot be solved by applying more science and technology. Combination of religious teachings about creation and scientific knowledge of the biosphere will enable many to take care of God's creation, which will pave way to global sustainability. George Washington Carver, an outstanding scientist and a deeply religious person, promoted global sustainability several decades ago when he worked at the Tuskegee University in Alabama. He recognized long ago that sustainability can be achieved through combining science and faith. He applied religious values such as justice to the poor and to creation and humility and reverence towards God's creation in his scientific exploration. He firmly believed that through proper keeping of creation motivated by religious values one can achieve sustainability. In this presentation, we will explore Carver's vision of global sustainability and we will describe a few sustainable technologies appropriate to present conditions that are inspired by Carver's work. Carver was invited by Booker T. Washington, the founder of the Tuskegee Institute, to create a department of agricultural sciences. In his letter of acceptance, Carver expressed his desire to cooperate with Washington and do all he can through Christ who strengthens him to better the condition of our people. He recognized that a mono-culture, cotton, was degrading the soil and was also keeping the black farmers who were only one generation removed from slavery in poverty. In 1897, he established an experimental station with one horse to power all equipment. He wrote in one of his bulletins, "For eight years the Tuskegee station has made the subject of soil improvement a special study, emphasizing the subject of crop rotation, deep plowing, terracing, etc., keeping in mind the poor tenant farmer with one-horse equipment; so therefore, every operation performed has been within his reach, the station having only one horse." 1 He applied the principles of loving one's neighbor and caring for the vulnerable persons to degraded and abused soil. He wrote an article in 1914 entitled "Being Kind to the Soil." In that article he observed, "Unkindness to anything means an

injustice to that thing. If I am unkind to you I do you an injustice, or wrong you in so me way. On the other hand, if I try to assist you in every way that I can to make a better citizen and in every way to do my very best for you, I am kind to you. The above principles apply with equal force to the soil. The farmer whose soil produces less every year, is unkind to it in some way; that is, he is not doing by it what he should; he is robbing it of some substance it must have, and he becomes, therefore, a soil robber rather than a progressive farmer." 2 He called on the farmers to use biblical teachings on Sabbath to the land in soil management. In a lecture to farmers in 1921, he noted, "We take this very book, here go way back here, almost to the beginning of time and we find.....the farmers were obliged to rest their lands and every fifty years was jubilee year. This was picnic time for the soil. Nothing must be taken off of it. Everything it produced was to go back to the soil. Now then, you know as well as I know that ever since that time we have heard such terms as diversify, diversify, diversify rest your soil. We paid absolutely no attention to it." 3 Carver considered exploitation of land as sinful. An Atlanta newspaper quoted him as saying, "Conservation is one of our big problems in this section. You can't tear up everything just to get the dollar out of it without suffering as result. It is a travesty to burn our woods and thereby burn up the fertilizer nature has provided for us. We must enrich our soil every year instead of merely depleting it. It is fundamental that nature will drive away those who commit sin against it." 4 Carver teaches us that in order to achieve global sustainability, we need to apply biblical principles of justice, love, frugality, creativity, and sacrifice even in the area of caring for God's creation. Carver emphasized the "Divine inspiration" in his scientific exploration. In 1924, Carver expressed his reliance on divine inspiration in the following words, "I never grope for methods; the method is revealed at the moment I am inspired to create something new. With our God to draw aside the curtain, I would be helpless." He was criticized by an anonymous editorial writer in the New York Times for Carver ascribing to divine inspiration for his success. But Carver stood his ground and responded to the editorial with these words, "I regret exceedingly that such a gross misunderstanding should arise as to what was meant by Divine inspiration.' Inspiration is never at variance with information; in fact, the more information one has the greater will be the inspiration." 5 Nearly 70 years later, the Union of Concerned Scientists have recognized the need for including religious perspectives in caring for creation. A recent video produced by the Union of Concerned Scientist entitled "Keeping the Earth" uses passages from the scripture with scientific perspective on creation to challenge congregations to get involved in the care of creation. Christians who are involved in the environmental sciences should follow Carver in developing innovative solutions through Divine inspiration and by following biblical principles. Carver's vision of global sustainability was grounded in his deep Christian faith. His reverence for all of God's creation and his humility were essential ingredients for establishing global sustainability. One of the most important aspects of Carver's philosophy regarding global sustaianability is hope. Hope based on the abundance of God's creation to fulfill the basic needs of God's creation. Carver demonstrated through his work that by using God given talents one can find multiple usage for even ordinary plants like peanuts, sweet potatoes and soy beans. Carver also showed us that as Christians we need to be concerned about the persons

farthest down. Without justice for the poor, we cannot achieve global sustainability. Following the vision and practices of Carver, several simple, appropriate technologies have been developed by the author during the last two decades. The following slides show a number of technologies that promote sustainability in the areas of urban agriculture, building techniques, and alternative energy.

Some Appropriate Technologies that can be Developed with Carver's Vision:

1. Food Producing Technologies: As many institutions have developed and are developing some extremely innovative food production systems, we will focus only on those technologies that others are not pursuing and which have potential to help the poor. Urban Agriculture. It is estimated that in the next century more than 50% of the population will be living in urban areas. One of the consequences of the urbanization is the destruction of productive land all over the world. While it is necessary to slow down or even halt the destruction of productive agricultural lands, wet lands and other habitats for birds and animals, we need to look for innovative ways to grow food in the urban areas to decentralize food production and to reduce energy and other resources spent on transporting and processing food. At the churchwide offices of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), an experimental urban gardening is being tried on the seventh floor of the parking garage. Using 4' diameter wading pools, a variety of vegetables and fruits are grown in a 9" soil medium. Last year we produced 500 pounds of vegetable in 15 productive containers. It is estimated that each container can yield about 30 to 50 pounds of vegetable during the growing season. The seventh floor garage can hold about 600 such containers and therefore theoretically can yield between 9 to 15 tons of vegetables. (SLIDES)

2. Urban aquaculture involving decentralized fish production is yet another system that can be promoted in cities. Unlike other animals fishes may not be barred from cities. They can be kept inside houses without endangering the health of human beings and they do not make noises or produce wastes that cannot be processed easily. The Ocean Ark International at Falmouth, Massachusetts has developed a suitable unit for urban conditions. By converting roofs or top floors of garages that are being underutilized to roof top gardens and fish farms, substantial amount of food can be raised in cities. These techniques also assures food security and safety.

3. Alternative Energy Technologies One of the sustainable energy sources that does not get enough attention and publicity is the use of human energy for transportation and power production. The World Watch Institute has been promoting bicycle as the best urban transportation system which can reduce pollution and congestion. While bicycles are designed to be used for transportation, they can also be modified to produce power to operate small-scale agriculture and industrial implements. The author has designed an attachment to

the bicycle that transforms the bicycle into a small power source to operate a rice thresher, a peanut sheller, a corn sheller, a water pump, grinders, a circular saw, a wood working lathe, and a small metal lathe. (SLIDES)

4. Building Technologies

Sustainable building technologies have been developed through the centuries in several parts of the world. Rammed earth techniques from China, adobe (mud bricks) building technology from the Native American settlements in the Southwest US, and straw bale construction technology from the early settlers from Nebraska are examples of sustainable technologies that can be adapted to modern conditions and requirements. Recently, some people living in modern buildings are experiencing Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome. It is suspected that the chemical used in the production of the building materials may be the cause for this sickness. There is a definite need to produce safe building products like wood stains, paints, and others. Carver was able to see in the clays of Georgia and Alabama the various color paints that could be made without harmful chemicals. There is so much that nature can give us in terms of building materials if only we can see like Carver did. The author introduced plastered straw construction to Indian villages last year. Preliminary results show that locally grown non-edible straws can be used as building materials and that such use will reduce the burnt bricks, cement, and other energy intensive materials usage. (SLIDES) Today, the proponents of sustainable society realize that science and technology alone cannot establish sustainability and are beginning to give importance to religious beliefs and values. At the turn of this century Carver showed us the need for combining scientific exploration and one's faith. We see the effects of decades of separating faith and values from our daily life resulting in the increase of lawlessness, greed, poverty, violence, environmental degradation, and unsustainable life styles. The churches hurt by the creation and evolution controversy failed to provide vision and leadership based on the kingdom values in the area of environmental stewardship. Environmental degradation, poverty, and violence which all lead to unsustainable society, need to be confronted with faith and moral values. Carver's vision and work, which combined justice, humility, creativity and scientific exploration, provide models for the church to follow as it strives to contribute to global sustainability.

References

5. George Washington Carver, "How to Build up Worn out Soils," Tuskegee Institute Experiment Station, Bulletin 6, Tuskegee, Alabama, 1905.

6. George Washington Carver, "Being Kind to the Soil," Negro Farms, January 31, 1914.

7. George Washington Carver, Stenographic Report of Lecture at Voorhees Farms Conference, Voorhees Normal and Industrial School, Denmark, S.C., February 16, 1921. 4. James H. Cobb, Jr., "Ford and Carver Point South's Way," Atlanta Journal, March 17, 1940. 5. John Ferrel, Fruits of Creation: A Look at Global Sustainability as Seen Through the Eyes of George Washington Carver, Macalaster Park Publishing Company, Shakopee, Minnesota, 1994.

(6) David Faldet, Associate Professor, Department of English, Luther College

Coevolutionary Beginnings: Eden and Turtle Island

[E-mail: faldeta@luther.edu]

Thiele (1999) says the fourth and latest wave of the environmental movement is based on a concept of coevolution, defined by Thompson (1994) as “reciprocal evolutionary change in interacting species.” The purpose of this paper is to suggest how a principle of coevolution is embodied in two creation myths, the Genesis-J creation story and the Winnebago Turtle Island story, and to suggest how each invests the land ethic with a sacred dimension that is compatible with ecological practice.

I will connect the concept of coevolution to several ecological readings of the second Genesis creation story (Baird Callicot’s [1999] “Genesis and John Muir” and Himes’ “The Sacrament of Creation: Toward an Environmental Theology” [1990]) as well as to the Turtle Island story that has served both native communities and contemporary activists, providing a groundwork for environmental practice.

Each of the two creation narratives looks back to a time of origin when animals had a close spiritual link with humanity. Each narrative describes a process of creation where the spiritual ancestors of humanity took an inventive part. Each narrative suggests a creator whose plans evolve in response to the help of co-actors in the story.

I write the paper from the perspective of one who teaches courses that introduce beginning college students to works of world literature. In these courses I consider origin myths and the ways they call us into being as children of a creator, part of a larger people, and the actors in a larger cosmos.

(7) Pedro Hernandez, Professor, Humanities and Social Sciences Institute, State University of Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

Community and Environment: A Christian Perspective

[E-mailphernan@siu.buap.mx

]A nation of variegated communities, Mexico must strive for their vitality

in the post‑modern world: a new look after the seminal idea of Vasco de

Quiroga, Civilizer and Bishop of Michacán, a heir of Th. Moore in the New

World, namely, his “hospitales” (or ‘hospitable towns’) around Patzcuaro

Lake. They are, (we hypothesize) in a context of globalization, a Christian

model for communities to follow in the processes of development, because of

their ecological design and their inertia towards sustainability.

‘Community’ has been primarily linked to a form of togetherness the

closest one next to kinship, the “we” group second to family. It involves an

unsinkable loyalty to definite sets of values, prominent among them, land,

ancestry, religion and economy. It marks all styles of life, and more

importantly, the ways of conducting normal political activities and the

ways of governance, are shaped and mantained by it with a profound religious

meaning

In this communication, environment refers to a holistic view of

ecological fitness in well being of the community. It has special

significance for the ways through which the human group constructs

normalcy in its multiple relations with other systems of life. Taken in the

depth of its meaning, the relationship between community and environment

does imply many a religious (theological) content otherwise essential to the

idea of developmental sustainability.

Globalization, as it is hereby understood does mean, a) first of all, in

economic terms, the expansion of markets and financial networks

(institutional and technological) beyond national boundaries plus their

juridical and structural consequences. b) such a concept, does not imply the

formal restrictions of the present day established international free trade

agreements; c) the main interest hereby lying in the human dimensions of

being global, beginning within the religious dimension also.

The main hypothesis is hereby explored along the paths of its

socio‑historical parameters: namely, community life, environmental

normalcy, and globalization, with some looks into the present conditions

and consequences of the planetary challenges highlighting the potentials

of Quiroga´s communities vis‑a‑vis the future of human development.

(8) John Kok, Professor of Philosophy and Dean for the Humanities, Dordt College

Responsible Ecology: Knowing the Mind of God When It Comes to Environmental

Studies

[E-mail: jkok@dordt.edu]

Donald Worster^[1] makes a convincing case that the face and focus of ecology as a discipline is changing in significant ways. The early growth and persisting enthusiasm for ecology lay in the hope that this science would offer direction that would allow humans to work and live in equilibrium and harmony with nature, to manage ecosystems of which we partake for maximum efficiency and mutual benefit, and to know when to leave well enough alone. But, as Worster points out, the landscape is changing today as science is coming to acknowledge the importance of disturbances and heterogeneity, of instability and perturbations, of “patch dynamics” and chaos theory.

In this paper I first make the case that ecology has moved beyond a Muirian awe of nature in large part because of a robust faith in science evident in the movement from Frederic Clements’ anticipated ecological super-organism and Eugene Odum’s flow of energy and trophic levels to the mind-boggling implications of chaos theory. Secondly, I address some questionable consequences of a typical Christian response to the findings of natural science, namely, the conviction that these findings, including, for example, those that due to indeterminacy are beyond our ken, are all known by God, and have been from the beginning. In conclusion, I challenge Worster’s sense that we must choose between “‘an infinitely wise plan’ that controls and hopes everything into order,” on the one hand, and a perceived universal chaos in which science and all faith in order will vanish, on the other. There are more choices to be had than between homeostasis in the mind of God and despair.

(9) John Mizzoni, Ph.D., Lecturer in Ethics, Villanova University and Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Neumann College

The Flux of Nature and Franciscan Biocentrism

[E-mail: jkok@dordt.edu]

Before we can consider the implications of contemporary ecology on environmental ethics we must first specify which environmental ethic we have in mind. There are some environmental ethics that rely on ecology more heavily than others. A holistic environmental ethic that accords moral standing to holistic entities such as species, ecosystems, and biotic communities is more vulnerable to changes in ecology than an environmental ethic that accords moral standing to individual entities. Biocentrism is a kind of individualistic environmental ethic that accords full moral standing to each and every living creature, whether animal or plant. The biocentric outlook on nature sees human beings as members of the Earth’s community of life who are on the same terms with other living members of the community. Biocentrists affirm our fellowship with other living creatures and hold that we are all equal members in the whole community of life on earth. St. Francis of Assisi maintained a biocentric outlook on nature. The environmental ethic of St. Francis can thus be construed as a form of biocentrism. As an individualist environmental ethic, it is not as vulnerable to changes in ecology as a holistic environmental ethic might be. Therefore, Christian environmental ethics in the tradition of Franciscan biocentrism need not be alarmed that nature is in flux. But rather, the new ecology reminds us (as does the book of Job) that there is an unpredictable quality in nature that limits what we can confidently know regarding the processes of nature.

(10) Sarah Schmidt, Davidson College

Married to the Land: Wendell Berry’s Covenantal Land Ethic

[E-mail: saschmidt@davidson.edu]

Farmer/writer Wendell Berry is perhaps the most prolific voice of Christian land-ethics in contemporary literature. Berry consistently draws parallels between the covenant of marriage and the commitment of a farmer to the land. In this paper, I explore the implications of this analogy: How does the value of land change when a farmer thinks in terms of relationship with rather than ownership of the land? How is this understanding of human-land relationship drawn from a Biblical understanding of covenant? How does Berry use different genres of literature (personal essay, fiction and poetry) to present a holistic understanding of land ethics? I place Berry’s work in the context of the contemporary discussion of environmentalism and spirituality, giving a special emphasis to the growing environmental concerns within Protestant thought.

Ecocriticism notes that the gendering of land in Western literature is related to the patterns of environmental conservation and exploitation evident in Western history. “Virgin” lands are valued while “raped” land is discarded as damaged. The gender of land is a relevant issue when reading Berry’s works, as the male farmer is consistently wedded to a feminized land. I acknowledge the problems of continuing to gender land in a tradition characterized by exploitation of the feminine. I also posit that Berry’s vision of covenantal relationship with the land is a suitable model for Western culture precisely because it recognizes the feminization of land and offers a model in which the feminine may be a respected partner.

Berry’s vision of relationship with the land is a personal vision, but he also calls others to learn how to live in relationship with the land. I explore the personal and universal character of Berry’s vision as expressed in his literature. Finally, I attempt to extend from Berry’s works an application of his values for non-farming communities.

(11) Mark Stone, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Furman University

Ecological Reflections on Natural Places and Worship

[E-mail: Mark.Stone@furman.edu]

Janisse Ray writes of her experience of God’s presence in an old growth longleaf pine forest: “It is as if a round table springs up on the cathedral of pines and God graciously pulls out a chair for me, and I no longer have to worry about what happens to souls.” She suggests here a relationship between God, human beings, and nature that is not only positive but also problematic. Positive because her words echo the New Testament gospel that God will prepare a table for us. This table, however, like the kingdom of God, is already among us, sheltered by the cathedral of old-growth longleaf pines. Problematic, however, because we are in the process of destroying these trees and the plant and animal species that inhabit the ecological system of which they are a part. In this paper, I intend to focus on the ways in which places and especially natural places are integral to our ethical and religious experience in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and thus essential to our considerations of the key relationships between ecology and theology. Ecology is on this view an account of our relationship to the house (oikos) or place in which we live. Much has been written to transform our tendencies to think and act as lords of creation into stewards. This laudable work aiming to reform our exploitative abuse into kindly use nevertheless focuses on the utilitarian side of human experience, on issues of practical dependencies and meeting the needs for existence. Further thought must address how in the context of our ecological thinking we meet the other of ethical concern and the Other of our religious experience. While most of the reflections here worry about where the center is or where the source of value lies, the argument of this paper turns to the essential role that place has in these encounters. Because place is not merely a background against which we live but always where we find the other, what is appropriate and salutary in our actions and our worship must include reflection on the places in which we live. Such reflection means not only cultivating an awareness of the places where we live and how our identity is bound up with them, but also understanding how a shared place connects us to the others who are present there. In this connecting, place creates and limits possibilities for experience that are unique to it. Consequently, natural places are especially important for possibilities they offer to the ethical and religious experience of a being whose life has an undeniable natural texture. To damage and destroy these natural places means that we damage and destroy ourselves and the others who share them. For our religious lives the destruction of natural places means destruction of irreplaceable possibilities for worship, certainly the sort of possibility suggested by our presence in the cathedral of pines and the experience of God’s presence which this may engender.

(12) G. Peter van Walsum, Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Studies, Baylor University

Transient Emergence of Waste Elimination Processes: The Development of Natural and

Engineered Closed-Loop Material Flows

[E-mail: Gpeter_van_Walsum@baylor.edu]

The generation and storage of material wastes in an industrial society is not without precedent in natural ecosystems. Industrial ecosystems are differentiated from their natural counterparts by their accelerated rate of waste production. This acceleration is also evident in the rate at which industrial systems are evolving to eliminate wastes.

Initially, the purpose of environmental engineering was to reduce the concentration of contaminants in effluents, providing the aptly named end‑of‑pipe solution. Often, this resulted not in the elimination of a waste, but in its reallocation to a different medium. Incineration transforms solid waste into air‑borne waste. Increasingly, new process designs are reducing the generation of wastes rather than just relocating them. This has been termed pollution prevention, green chemistry, or industrial ecology.

There is ample motivation for this change, since reducing waste generation usually prompts positive synergies, such as reduced production costs and improved work conditions. Over time, the flow of materials through our industrial complexes is evolving into a system characterized by interconnections and recycling loops‑‑much like a natural ecosystem.

Natural ecosystems are often characterized as having no material waste streams. In a strict sense, this is only true if one allows for considerable temporal latitude to reuse all wastes. Consider the Earth's early atmosphere. In a chemically reduced atmosphere, the waste product of photosynthesis‑oxygen‑was a pollutant. Oxygen was (and still is) toxic to many organisms. This waste issue was resolved over time by the advent of aerobic respiration, which made use of the oxygen.

In religious terms, uncleanness among the Hebrews was a normally temporary state. It was often brought on by exposure to pollution of some kind, and was ended through a ritual purification. Is the temporary nature of wastes analogous to the temporary nature of uncleanness? Does the utilization of wastes compare to the rituals of purification?

(13) Louke van Wensveen, Associate Professor, Department of Theological Studies, Loyola Marymount University

Virtue and the Flux of Nature

[E-mail: lvanwens@lmu.edu]

Like any other human activity, the cultivation of virtues takes place within the larger context of the flux of nature. On the input side, virtue cultivation in general requires natural conditions that sustain a sound mind and a reasonably well-functioning body. Specific virtues may require additional input, such as proper equipment for effective care and courage, gifts for generosity, closets and files (real or virtual) for orderliness, and backpacking gear for love of wild nature. On the output side, virtue cultivation in general contributes to the flourishing of the moral agent. (In Aristotelian-Thomistic traditions this is a defining characteristic of virtue.). Specific virtues also (ideally) realize designated aims: a garden well-tended, endangered wetlands saved, a person made happy, an organization running efficiently, the Creator of everything glorified. Less noticeably but no less importantly, the cultivation of virtues may additionally generate unintended side-effects: a stream polluted by the cumulative effects of a neighborhood's cleanliness, a forest destroyed by a nation's love of learning. Through necessary inputs and intended as well as unintended outputs, virtue cultivation is thus embedded in the flux of nature--for better or for worse! However, since it would be inconsistent to think of the cultivation of virtue as having a negative impact on the flux of nature,* careful discernment of desirable rates and kinds of flux, as well as keen awareness of the natural embeddedness of virtue cultivation, are prerequisites for any virtue theory and practice.

*Cf. Louke van Wensveen, "Ecosystem Sustainability as a Criterion for Genuine Virtue." Environmental Ethics 23 (Fall 2001): 227-41.

(14)

Gregory Zuschlag, Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA

Inspecting the Historical, Biblical, and Ecological Fabric of Environmental Stewardship: A Case of the Emperor’s New Clothes

[E-mail: zoosh@juno.com]

A great irony to come out of the “Lynn White Debate” is the tendency of radical environmentalists and deep ecologists to read Genesis 1-3 in much the same literalistic and ahistorical vein as their polar opposites, religious anti-environmentalists, do; that is, as providing the biblical and historical legitimization for humanity’s complete separation from and “dominion” (read domination) over the Earth. For the former group, such an interpretation permits the wholesale dismissal of biblical religion in favor of other non-religious or non-biblical religious perspectives; whereas, for the latter, it permits the dismissal of environmental concerns and ecological knowledge in toto.

Yet, perhaps an even greater irony lies in the counter-strategy rather hastily and uncritically adopted by the majority of environmentally concerned mainstream western religious thinkers and leaders, that of environmental “stewardship.” Seen as the single best way of avoiding the biblical and historical inaccuracies of fellow religious believers and admired environmental activists, advocates of environmental stewardship put forth the moderate claim that in Genesis 1-3 God assigns human beings the role of stewards, i.e. caretakers, managers, and preservers of God’s own Creation. But is the environmental ethic of stewardship as biblically, historically, and moreover, ecologically (i.e. scientifically and philosophically) sound as its proponents believe it to be?