I wrote this article a long time ago, but never fully edited it, and never published it. I decided to pull it out of the archive and post it here now, despite it’s pitfalls. In the future, I hope to write much more than this on this topic. For now, this serves as a precursor to that effort.
Introduction:
The World was Made for You, not You for the World. It’s hard to believe that this is such a widely debated issue today, but it is. Far from being a fringe issue, this is a mainstream issue. This is a debate even within solid churches. And this has not happened on accident.
For years now, theologians and individuals who are or lean toward being Critical Theorists have made ground in Christian circles.[1] They have made strategic efforts to promote what they call “eco-theology.” The term known to most is “Creation Care.”[2] In their efforts, they have elected to try and steal away John Calvin to their side. Afterall, what other figure other than John Calvin commands such respect at the core of Reformed Protestantism. If they can take John Calvin captive to their cause, they can take Reformed Theology captive as well.
This article is my humble effort to counter that effort. And who would be better to utilize in doing this than the theologian they are seeking to capture: John Calvin?
The Two Positions:
There are two positions on the proper interaction between humanity and the rest of creation which can be fundamentally defined and distinguished as follows:
- We are made for the good of the earth.
- All of creation is made for humanity.
The eco-theologians hold to position 1. Calvin held to position 2. In this article, I will prove that Calvin held to position 2, and allow him to define position 2. Then I will show position 1 to be what it is, and expose the flaws in the effort to claim Calvin for that side.
John Calvin – Position 2
John Calvin was radically anthropocentric (human centered) in his view of human beings’ place in creation. He could not be clearer:
…For why doth the sun and stars shine in the heavens, save only that they may serve men? Why doth the rain fall from heaven? Why doth the earth bring forth her increase, save only that they may minister food to men? Therefore, God hath not set man upon earth that he may be an idle beholder of his work, as being set upon a theater, but to exercise himself in praising the liberality of God, whilst that he enjoyeth the riches of heaven and earth.[3]
Calvin believed in the full enjoyment of the abundance of what God had made for man to enjoy:
…we infer what was the end for which all things were created; namely, that none of the conveniences and necessities of life might be wanting to men. In the very order of the creation the paternal solicitude of God for man is conspicuous, because he furnished the world with all things needful, and even with an immense profusion of wealth, before he formed man. Thus man was rich before he was born.[4]
If any of us doubted that God created something without regard to man, Calvin would have sought to correct us:
[It is] in the very order of things [that believers ought] diligently to contemplate God’s fatherly love toward mankind, in that He did not create Adam until He had lavished upon the universe all manner of good things … Now when He disposed the movements of the sun and stars to human uses, filled the earth, waters, and air with living things, and brought forth an abundance of fruits to suffice as foods, in thus assuming the responsibility of a foreseeing and diligent father of the family He shows His wonderful goodness towards us.[5]
All of creation, from the smallest insect to the largest sun, was made by God for humanities good and His glory.
Calvin did empress the need to “touch nothing of God’s bounty but what we know he has permitted us to do.” Yet that was not for an ecological end. He continued, “since we cannot enjoy anything with a good conscience, except we receive it as from the hand of God.”[6] God “promises a liberal abundance, which should leave nothing wanting to a sweet and pleasant life.”[7] The only reason Calvin gives for a moderate use of the resources of creation is for the good of one’s family line.[8]
God’s “fatherly kindness,” Calvin taught, “should be to us the best mistress to teach us moderation.”[9] It is God’s goodness that is to govern our use of His gifts. Calvin would’ve rejected outright the idea of policies governing the use of temperance and moderation. “I indeed confess that here consciences neither can nor ought to be bound by fixed and definite laws; but that Scripture having laid down general rules for the legitimate uses we should keep within the limits which they prescribe.”[10] For my part, I believe that he would have despised many of the eco-policies today which tend toward the destruction of humanity rather than the good of human beings: God “created [the gifts of Providence] for our good, and not for our destruction.”[11] Again, Calvin’s rule on moderation is dervived from Scripture for the individuals’ application and good: “The proper rule with respect to the use of bodily sustenance, is to partake of it that it may sustain, but not oppress us”[12] – and, by extension as he adds shortly after, that abundance is given to some that they might better relieve the wants of their brethren.[13]
Calvin believed that we should have the enjoyment of the abundant liberality of God which He had lavished upon His special creation. To make the case that Calvin would’ve been an eco-theologian on the basis that his view is “not strictly utilitarian in his outlook toward nature,”[14] misses a crucial point: Calvin never wrote in purely utilitarian terms to begin with, and it is doubtful that such concepts ever entered his head! His point is a simple one: both the use and enjoyment of creation is intended for men such that they would give thanks to God for His superabundant love.
In summary, position 2 (All of creation is made for humanity) according to Calvin is that everything in creation is given to human beings to enjoy, giving glory to God in the use and enjoyment of all things. The only restraints Calvin gives on this use of all things is the love of family, and the prohibition of sin. Everything is made by God for humanity’s joy and for His glory through humanity’s good.
Eco-theology – Position 1
The eco-theologians,[15] of course, despise Calvin’s anthropocentrism (Calvin’s human-centered-ness). Paragraphs like this one make their frustration with Calvin evident:
The main ecological weakness of Calvin is found in his utilitarian worldview. For Calvin, God created everything for human beings. His anthropocentric perspective has influenced his interpretation of Genesis 1:26–28 significantly (Calvin 1578:54–56). This is clearly understandable given the Reformation, and mostly the renaissance contexts in which Calvin lived where the sole intention consisted of exalting the uniqueness of human beings.[16]
The sentiment of disdain in such a sentence as “Calvin lived where the sole intention consisted of exalting the uniqueness of human beings” makes perfect sense once one knows that this was the first sentence of the paper in question: “The earth is under serious threat in many parts of the world mostly because of human attitudes towards other species.”[17]
Not all of those promoting a form of eco-theology are so opposed to Calvin’s anthropocentrism. Jason Foster, for example, summarizes Calvin’s anthropocentrism well:
Calvin is explicit in putting forth an anthropic principle in regards to creation. Calvin believes that the entire creation was ordained for man’s use and sustenance, which, in Calvin’s eyes further highlights humanity’s utter dependence on God and the need for obedience as the proper response.[18]
Foster does not end here, however, and argues that Calvin promoted “employment [of the environment] not [as] a license for excess and abuse, but for restraint. In fact, we would argue that such a perspective may make Calvin a forerunner of the current ‘creation care’ perspective that has been somewhat popularized within evangelical circles….”[19]
Jason Foster makes several compelling arguments. One is from Calvin’s comments on Psalm 104:15, another is from Deuteronomy 20:19, and a third is from Book 3, chapter 10 of the Institutes. Yet, in each and every case Calvin’s entire focus is on the good that the creation is to humanity; alien to his thought is the idea of creation for creations sake, or valuing creation as inherently valuable.
Eco-theology always tends towards flattening the human/nature distinction until they are equal in value, and humanity is subjugated to creation because of a divine duty of care. The process of eco-theology is to make all of nature and all of humanity of equal value. Eco-theologians often exalt a sense of divinely mandated stewardship of the earth to a point where humanity becomes the handmaiden of the earth.
For example, one idea proposed within eco-theology is that of committing “ourselves to work for the good of the environment on which our life depends.”[20] As for Calvin, he would have revolted at such an idea – not at the practicality of such an idea, but the theological logic of such an idea. For, he wrote,
“we are instructed to seek from God alone whatever is necessary for us, and in the very use of his gifts, we are to exercise ourselves in meditating on his goodness and paternal care. For the words of God are to this effect: ‘Behold, I have prepared food for thee before thou weren’t formed; acknowledge me, therefore, as thy Father, who have so diligently provided for thee when thou weren’t yet created.”[21]
Many ecologists have expanded on this idea more broadly. One blog writer writes,
The world is on fire. And it’s drowning. We can hide in the church, or we can grab some gear and maybe learn how to use a pail … Listen to what the Creator Spirit is saying and heed her call to love and serve the Lord in, through, for the whole cosmos.[22]
Another person positing a view he now rejects,[23] posted that “The Earth does not become in the service of humanity, rather humanity becomes in the service of Earth. – Adapted from Thomas Berry.”[24] Many in political office are proponents of this view. For example, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez posted this: “Genesis 2: God commands all people to ‘serve and protect’ creation.”[25]
Some ecologists are outright idolators:[26]
The point is that God’s fate and the world’s future are fundamentally bound up with one another. God is so internally related to the universe that the spectra of ecocide raises the risk of Deicide. Creation is God’s and thus, to wreak environmental havoc on the earth is to run the risk that we will do irreparable, even fatal harm to the Mystery we call God (Hessel 2001:192).
In this sense, in accordance with Calvin, we, humans must commit to this divine valuation of the wonders of nature and diversity of life as the starting point for any contemporary ecological action.[27]
It should be readily apparent that this is idolatry and is fundamentally the overturn of the entirety of Calvin’s theology of creation.
As a side note, many eco-theologians seem to add in random gabs at Western civilization and “Western Christianity.” For example: “It seems to us that if Christians, particularly in the West, were as fervent about self-denial as Calvin, Christians would be the best environmentalists by default.”[28] Though it is not the focus of this article, such gabs should stimulate careful reflection on why such gabs are so easy to make against the West, and why criticism of the Eastern world in this area is so seldom expressed.
Other eco-theologians have fundamentally misunderstood why God created all things, adopting a theatrical vision of God’s glory in creation. Case in point: “Despite Calvin’s anthropic emphasis, the seemingly inevitable deduction to be gleaned from Calvin’s views is that God values creation, not because he needs the creation, but because it is a visible expression of his invisible majesty and character.”[29] I have hopefully quoted enough from Calvin in this article to dismantle that idea, but if that is unsatisfactory, I have written several other articles which make the case that Calvin held to a communicative, not a theatrical, definition of glory.
It is more difficult to summarize position 1 (We are made for the good of the earth). There is such a vast array of view within eco-theology that it would not be fair to speak for all who are in or about that camp. Its trajectory, however, is obvious: humans are to serve the earth for the earth’s sake, not for their own.
Calvin Versus the Eco-Theologians
There is one paragraph the eco-theologians use more than any other in their effort to take Calvin captive to their cause. That paragraph is found in his commentary on Genesis 2:15. Rather than drawing out my case, I simply want to compare and contrast Calvin’s view against the view of some eco-theologians. First, I want to present to you the paragraph as Christopher Watkin’s provides it in his book Biblical Critical Theory. As you read it, think about what principles you would derive from such a paragraph, and try and summarize Calvin’s view as Watkin presents it.
that the earth was given to man, with this condition, that he should occupy himself in its cultivation. . . . the custody of the garden was given in charge to Adam, to show that we possess the things which God has committed to our hands, on the condition, that being content with a frugal and moderate use of them, we should take care of what shall remain. . . . let every one regard himself as the steward of God in all things which he possesses. Then he will neither conduct himself dissolutely, nor corrupt by abuse those things which God requires to be preserved.
From the paragraph as Watkin’s presents it, I would assume several things:
- Man was given creation as a gift, but on condition that we care for it well as its custodian.
- That this custody primarily consists of preserving God’s creation even through sacrifice.
- That the end of this custody is not our happiness, but that preservation of God’s creation.
Now, here is Calvin’s full quote, with what Watkin cited in bold. As you read it, think about what Calvin is actually saying in comparison to what Watkin made it seem he was saying:
Moses now adds, that the earth was given to man, with this condition, that he should occupy himself in its cultivation. Whence it follows that men were created to employ themselves in some work, and not to lie down in inactivity and idleness. This labor, truly, was pleasant, and full of delight, entirely exempt from all trouble and weariness; since however God ordained that man should be exercised in the culture of the ground, he condemned in his person, all indolent repose. Wherefore, nothing is more contrary to the order of nature, than to consume life in eating, drinking, and sleeping, while in the meantime we propose nothing to ourselves to do. Moses adds, that the custody of the garden was given in charge to Adam, to show that we possess the things which God has committed to our hands, on the condition, that being content with a frugal and moderate use of them, we should take care of what shall remain. Let him who possesses a field, so partake of its yearly fruits, that he may not suffer the ground to be injured by his negligence; but let him endeavor to hand it down to posterity as he received it, or even better cultivated. Let him so feed on its fruits that he neither dissipates it by luxury, nor permits to be marred or ruined by neglect. Moreover, that this economy, and this diligence, with respect to those good things which God has given us to enjoy, may flourish among us; let every one regard himself as the steward of God in all things which he possesses. Then he will neither conduct himself dissolutely, nor corrupt by abuse those things which God requires to be preserved.
From the whole, unmutilated quote, I would come to entirely different conclusions about Calvin’s position:
- Mankind was not only given creation as a gift, but the work of cultivation as a gift, which would be in and of itself a delight to them.
- This proper cultivation of creation primarily consists of the happy intentional work of making those good things flourish which God has given to us.
- That the end of this proper cultivation is not only our own happiness, but that happiness of our children and children’s children, that they may learn how to better enjoy God’s good creation through proper cultivation of it.
A similar strategy is used by Jason Foster,[30] and Nikola Gjorgon.[31]
Let Calvin, then, have his say:
Have done, then, with that inhuman philosophy which, in allowing no use of the creatures but for necessity, not only maliciously deprives us of the lawful fruit of the divine beneficence, but cannot be realised without depriving man of all his senses, and reducing him to a block.[32]
Praise God in the enjoyment of His lavish goodness in creation, bask in the freedom you have that is bound by God’s Law, and praise God for providing for you and your families through the joys and sorrows of the cultivation of what He has given.
[1] I want to be careful here and clarify that the push, while not entirely from the Critical Theorists, is in the majority from the Critical Theorists.
[2] Douglas Moo says this: “Creation Care is simply a species of biblical social justice” https://x.com/WokePreacherTV/status/1686377268757901313?s=20
[3] John Calvin (n.d.). Commentary on Acts – Volume 2. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Grand Rapids, MI. p. 16. Emphasis mine.
[4] John Calvin (n.d.). Commentary on Genesis – Volume 1. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Grand Rapids, MI. p. 54.
[5] John Calvin (1960). Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume One (John T. McNeill, Ed.). Westminster John Know Press. Louisville KY. p. 161-162. Emphasis mine.
[6] John Calvin (n.d.). Commentary on Genesis – Volume 1. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Grand Rapids, MI. p. 56.
[7] John Calvin (n.d.). Commentary on Genesis – Volume 1. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Grand Rapids, MI. p. 56.
[8] John Calvin (n.d.). Commentary on Genesis – Volume 1. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Grand Rapids, MI. p. 77.
[9] John Calvin commenting on Psalm 104:15.
[10] John Calvin’s Institutes, 3.10.1.
[11] John Calvin’s Institutes, 3.10.2.
[12] John Calvin commenting on Psalm 104:15.
[13] Calvin says something similar in his Institutes, 3.10.3., “Where is the gratitude if you so gorge or stupify yourself with feasting and wine as to be unfit for offices of piety, or the duties of your calling?”
[14] Jason Foster, The Ecology of John Calvin.
[15] One writer pairs the idea of “eco-theology” with the idea of “eco-justice” (see Pihkala).
[16] Kivatsi Jonathan Kavusa, John Calvin and creation: Retrieving Calvin’s ecological insights on Genesis 1, p.19 – https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2413-94672021000100038
[17] Kivatsi Jonathan Kavusa, John Calvin and creation: Retrieving Calvin’s ecological insights on Genesis 1, p.1 – https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2413-94672021000100038 emphasis mine
[18] Jason Foster, The Ecology of John Calvin.
[19] Jason Foster, The Ecology of John Calvin.
[20] Kivatsi Jonathan Kavusa, John Calvin and creation: Retrieving Calvin’s ecological insights on Genesis 1, p.11 – https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2413-94672021000100038
[21] John Calvin (n.d.). Commentary on Genesis – Volume 1. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Grand Rapids, MI. p. 55-56.
[22] K DALEY MOSIER, emphasis mine, https://x.com/SBGB19/status/1733263705201090706?s=20
[23] https://x.com/MichaelTG09/status/1733268864421531791?s=20
[24] https://x.com/SBGB19/status/1733265209022628060?s=20
[25] https://x.com/SBGB19/status/1733265847492186462?s=20
[26] In fairness to Jason Foster, as he is also quoted in this article, he would not hold to such a view: “Despite Calvin’s anthropic emphasis, the seemingly inevitable deduction to be gleaned from Calvin’s views is that God values creation, not because he needs the creation, but because it is a visible expression of his invisible majesty and character.”
[27] Kivatsi Jonathan Kavusa, John Calvin and creation: Retrieving Calvin’s ecological insights on Genesis 1, p.15 – https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2413-94672021000100038 emphasis mine
[28] Jason Foster, The Ecology of John Calvin.
[29] Jason Foster, The Ecology of John Calvin.
[30] Jason Foster, The Ecology of John Calvin.
[31] Nikola Gjorgon, The Protestant Reformation and the Environmental Crisis The Case of John Calvin, p. 301.
[32] John Calvin’s Institutes, 3.10.3.
Discover more from Standing Before God, This We Are and No More
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.