Should we drop the language of 'Responsible Stewardship'?

The viewpoint of humans has been anthropocentric in the history and it is likely that the majority of humanity will think that way also in the future.

I associate the use of the word ‘stewardship’ with the historical development that has happened within gamekeeping. A crude model of the historical development during the last 200 years has been a succession from being a hunter/utilizer (with limited protected areas reserved for private use or being religious sanctuaries); to being a ‘hero’ that protects the game and other beneficial animals by hunting the evil beasts; to being a controller of the game populations and other nature; to being a steward of not only the game animals but also of other nature, especially through habitat protection. My translation of words is perhaps not the best possible but I hope you get the idea.

Responsible stewardship is something positive, if we think from the anthropocentric viewpoint. It admits that we are responsible in front of God about how we treat nature, and guides towards a nature-friendly living style. Much better than the historical attitudes.

If we forget anthropocentrism, ecosystems would cope better without humans. Getting rid of humans without destroying ecosystems is not realism. The reality is that humans have changed most ecosystems in the world and the impact is growing stronger. In this context, responsible stewardship may be the best possible alternative as it points towards reducing and mitigating the negative effects of human socities towards the other creation.

1 Like

I am reading the Cape Town Commitment of the Lausanne movement. I noticed that chapter 7 in the part I is ‘We love God’s world’. The words used in that document are love, (creation) care, responsible use, ecological responsibility, environmental advocacy and action, exercising responsible dominion and stewardship. Stewardship is coupled with the word dominion and seems to have a limited scope in this context.

It is great that even a global missionary agreement recognizes the need to include creation care not only to our lives but also to the message Christians are telling about God and what Jesus did (missionary work).

1 Like

After having read around more and thought more about the question, I’d really prefer to drop the term “Creation Care” rather than “Responsible Stewardship.” I find the term “Creation Care” a christianized marketing term or accommodation aimed at culture warriors, who view “ecology” and “environmentalism” as more liberal plots to replace Capitalism with Socialism, and who find the idea of shared values with people outside their concept of church as distasteful at best.
I’m sure that the intensity of my bristling is the result of living in a place where people think so differently than I do and are irritated/challenged by my non-conformity.
Additionally, I dislike the term, because it provides a separate (mental) category for christians that focuses more on theology than measurable data, thus allowing them to separate their work (if there is any) from the wider, historical, data-driven work of environmentalism and ecology. “We christians are doing a new, different, better, godly thing.”
I guess, if that’s what it takes to get christians involved, then ok. But I’m not a fan. It allows us just build higher, thicker walls.

I listened to the podcast and I enjoyed it and agreed with almost everything except the need to drive on with a push about semantics of terms. Even within the podcast at one point the woman seems to admit if you don’t have a human focused belief on stewardship as if yoite not part of nature the term is fine. So for me I’ll continue to use stewardship because I think it’s a better term than beyond human creation.
From a scientific snd theological position, I believe that humans are part of nature and we are also above animals as far as in we are the ones that can make or break so much of the world. It’s us, not butterflies, causing chemical warfare wiping out life in gardens and so on in a massive way. Elephants and beavers are habitat changers and we are habitat destroyers. So I feel we have a more significant responsibility to care more and do more.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.