Ch is ian E hics: An h opocen ism, Ecocen ism and
Theocen ic En i onmen alism
João Ca los Pe ei a de Ama al
Disse ação em Ecologia Humana: P oblemas Sociais e
Con empo âneos
Lisboa, ma ço de 2021
Tese ap esen ada pa a cump imen o dos equisi os necessá ios à ob enção do g au de
Mes e em Ecologia Humana, ealizada sob a o ien ação cien í ica da P o .ª D
I a Pi es e do p o . Ka l B uckmeie .
Ch is ian E hics: An h opocen ism, Ecocen ism and Theocen ic En i onmen alism FCSH - UNL
Bu ask now he beas s, and hey shall each hee; and he owls o he ai , and hey shall ell
hee:
O speak o he ea h, and i shall each hee: and he ishes o he sea shall decla e un o hee.
Who knowe h no in all hese ha he hand o he Lo d ha h w ough his?
In whose hand is he soul o e e y li ing hing, and he b ea h o all mankind.
- Job 12:7-10 (KJV)
Ch is ian E hics: An h opocen ism, Ecocen ism and Theocen ic En i onmen alism FCSH - UNL
Acknowledgemen s
I would like o hank…
… P o esso I a Pi es and P o esso Ka l B uckmeie , o hei willingness o supe ise he
de elopmen o his hesis, o hei pa ience and exho a ion owa ds academic igou and
excellence. Fo hei ongoing suppo and academic guidance, as well as hei dedica ion o
eading and e- eading om he gene al s uc u e o he minu iae o he ex , and pushing me ou o
my com o zone.
… all he in e iewees who pa icipa ed in his esea ch p ojec , and hei pa ience e en when he
ime had ex ended well beyond he allo ed ame.
… FCSH and FLUL lib a ies o hos ing me o long hou s day in and day ou , and allowing me o
consul hei books, some o which a e included in his wo k and o he s o which ha e helped
shape he de elopmen o his hesis.
… My pa en s: My dad o he cons an “how is i going?”, eminding me ha he e is wo k o be
done; and my mo he o he mul iple inqui ies which se ed as eminde s o keep yping. A
signi ican pa o he d i e o inish his p ojec was o honou hem, and o hank hem o hei
eage ness and dedica ion o allow me o ge an educa ion, a p i ilege which is no equally
dis ibu ed a ound he wo ld. All he es o my amily who suppo ed me h oughou he cou se.
… all he people in ol ed ha , knowingly o unknowingly, con ibu ed o and aided he
de elopmen o his hesis in any way, shape o o m. F om all he uni e si y s a , o he au ho s
o he consul ed ma e ial, o he builde s o he gui a s played du ing much-needed b eaks, o
e e yone who lis ened o and encou aged he de elopmen o he hesis, o all who encou aged,
counseled, p ayed… and many o he s whom i would p o e o he se e al pages o name.
… and abo e all, God, o he gi o li e and his beau i ul place called Ea h wi h unending
glimpses o His splendo and majes y in he de ailed in icacy o he smalles o lowe s, o he
awe-inspi ing moun ainous landscapes, e lec ing His endless lo e, ca e, and conside a ion.
Jesus o dying on he c oss o humani y and c ea ion’s es o a ion, lea ing us wi h a p omise o
a new Ga den ee o su e ing and des uc ion; and o hope and ai h in he mids o oubling
imes, knowing ha ue lo e has al eady p e ailed o e all da kness.

Ch is ian E hics: An h opocen ism, Ecocen ism and Theocen ic En i onmen alism FCSH - UNL
ÉTICA CRISTÃ: ANTROPOCENTRISMO, ECOCENTRISMO E AMBIENTALISMO
TEOCÊNTRICO
CHRISTIAN ETHICS: ANTHROPOCENTRISM, ECOCENTRISM AND
THEOCENTRIC ENVIRONMENTALISM
Joao Ca los Pe ei a de Ama al
O obje i o des a ese é de engaja e con ibui pa a a discussão en e o campo da
É ica Ambien al e a É ica Ambien al C is ã, e isando ês pe spe i as di e en es:
an opocên ica, ecocên ica e eocên ica. Uma longa discussão en e o
pensamen o C is ão e é ica ambien al le ou a uma discussão pola izada, baseada
em uma dico omia an opocên ica – ecocên ica, le ando a um oco mínimo em
pe spe i as é icas al e na i as. Além disso, na li e a u a, o c is ianismo é ge almen e
is o como hos il às pe spe i as ambien ais, em pa e de ido à aplicação da
dico omia an opocên ica-ecocên ica pa a medi a pa icipação ambien al nes es
g upos. Po meio de uma e isão de li e a u a “s a e-o - he-a ” e en e is as com
especialis as, es a ese em ap esen a a pe spe i a eocên ica aplicada à é ica
ambien al c is ã como sendo um impulsionado compa í el e bem-sucedido pa a
uma ação ambien al e e i a em comunidades c is ãs, bem como um a o po encial
pa a mais in e ação en e o c is ianismo e a ação ambien al. O signi icado des e
es udo é de isa o nece uma isão ap o undada da discussão ao longo do empo
e desa ia a noção de ausência de cuidado ambien al no c is ianismo, ap esen ando
a pe spe i a eocên ica da é ica ambien al c is ã como um o e impulsionado pa a
o cuidado e a ação ambien al.
Ch is ian E hics: An h opocen ism, Ecocen ism and Theocen ic En i onmen alism FCSH - UNL
The aim o his hesis is o engage in and con ibu e o he discussion be ween he
ield o En i onmen al E hics and Ch is ian En i onmen al E hics by e iewing h ee
di e en pe spec i es: an h opocen ic, ecocen ic and heocen ic. A long-s anding
discussion be ween Ch is ian hough and en i onmen al e hics has led o a pola ized
discussion based on an an h opocen ic-ecocen ic dicho omy, leading o minimal
ocus on al e na i e e hical pe spec i es. Mo eo e , in he li e a u e Ch is iani y is
gene ally seen as being hos ile o en i onmen al pe spec i es, in pa due o an
applica ion o he an h opocen ic-ecocen ic dicho omy o measu e en i onmen al
pa icipa ion in hese g oups. By a s a e-o - he-a li e a u e e iew and expe
in e iews, his hesis p esen s he heocen ic pe spec i e applied o Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hics as being a compa ible and success ul d i e o e ec i e
en i onmen al ac ion in Ch is ian communi ies, as well as a po en ial ac o o u he
in e ac ion be ween Ch is iani y and en i onmen al ac ion. This s udy’s signi icance is
ha i aims o p o ide an in-dep h o e iew o he discussion o e ime, and challenge
he no ion o Ch is iani y’s absence o en i onmen al ca e, by p esen he heocen ic
Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics pe spec i e as a s ong d i e o en i onmen al ca e
and ac ion.
KEY-WORDS: human ecology, ecology, Ch is iani y, Ch is ian e hics, Ch is ian
en i onmen alism, an h opocen ism, ecocen ism, heocen ism
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: ecologia humana, ecologia, C is ianismo, é ica C is ã, ambien alismo
C is ão, an opocen ismo, ecocen ismo, eocen ismo
Ch is ian E hics: An h opocen ism, Ecocen ism and Theocen ic En i onmen alism FCSH - UNL
Ch is ian E hics: An h opocen ism, Ecocen ism and Theocen ic En i onmen alism FCSH - UNL
INDEX
PART I: In oduc ion and Theo e ical Backg ound
1
Summa y
2
1. In oduc ion
2
1.1 Con ex ualiza ion
2
1.2 Resea ch p oblem and objec i es
6
1.2.1 Resea ch p oblem
1.2.2 Objec i es
6
6
2. Me hodology
8
2.1 Guiding ques ions and Hypo hesis
2.1.1 Ques ions
2.1.2 Hypo hesis
8
8
9
2.2 Resea ch and Re iew Me hodology
2.2.1 Quali a i e Resea ch Design
2.2.2 Li e a u e Re iew
10
10
11
2.3 In e iews
2.3.1 Sampling
2.3.2 E hical Dimensions
2.3.3 Con en analysis
12
15
16
17
3. Li e a u e Re iew and Discussion o En i onmen al E hics
20
3.1 The p oblem discussed in he Li e a u e Re iew
20
3.2 Ch is ian Religion and En i onmen al E hics: Wha is hei ela ion and wha
a e he p oblems?
21
3
F om i s e y ounda ions, en i onmen al discussions and e hical e lec ion on na u e
has been a con lic o wo ld iews, alues and ideals, usually wi h eligious o e ones
(Ho man, Sandelands, 2005: 143). In he second hal o he wen ie h cen u y, as
en i onmen al isks g ew and in ensi ied, so did conce n abou he ole o eligion o he
s uc u ing o human ela ions wi h na u e. Much o his conce n implied a hope o a
“g eening” o eligion; in o he wo ds, i ook up he ques ion how a a eligion can suppo
en i onmen ally esponsi e beha iou (Taylo , 2011: 3).
The deba e abou he ole o eligion in he ela ionship be ween man and na u e led
o wo main mo emen s: he c ea ion o new heologies o na u e, and he e ision o
adi ional heology o accoun o con empo a y en i onmen al ma e s. (J. Hill, 2000: 158)
Fu he mo e, wi h he de elopmen o he en i onmen al discou se, c i ical iews abou he
Ch is ian wo ld iew and i s consequences o human-na u e ela ionships a ise. This a i ude
o c i icism and ejec ion is based upon he hesis ha he Ch is ian eligion and i s ideology
is he main cause o ou en i onmen al c isis, and ha i needs o be ejec ed and eplaced.
Aldo Leopold, one o he leading oices in en i onmen al e hics, a gues o a econnec ion o
humans and na u e wi h he help o a biocen ic model o en i onmen al e hics. He c i icizes
mode n socie y’s ela ions wi h na u e as ecologically unsus ainable and des uc i e. This
c i icism assumes ha ou dominan Wes e n wo ld iew is an unheal hy combina ion o
biblical human excep ionalism and consume ism, which is deemed o be unsui able o he
de elopmen o conse a ion alues. (Callico , 2021: 29)
Mo eo e , in he Human Ecological discou se, his c i icism is no only di ec ed o mode n
socie y’s wo ld iew, bu also o a Ch is ian and biblical wo ld iew, which is deemed as
an h opocen ic and unsui able o he de elopmen o ecology (Whi e, 1967; Washing on e
al., 2021). Wi hin he discou se o en i onmen al e hics, his c i ical iew o an h opocen ism
as pe aining o he Ch is ian eligion impedes he in eg a ion o Ch is ians in he ecological
communi y, because Ch is ian eligion and e hics a e associa ed wi h being ecologically
ha m ul, whe eas o Ch is ians, ecology is iewed as an i-Ch is ian and o e ly c i ical o he
biblical wo ld iew.
No wi hs anding, o he en i onmen al mo emen , wi h a la ge numbe o ollowe s
o he Ch is ian adi ion, i seems unwise o disc edi he Ch is ian adi ion, wi hou
conside ing he s eng hs o i b ings o he discussion. Simkins (2014: 399-400) a gues o
he inclusion o Ch is ians in he en i onmen al discou se, because o he impo ance o he

4
Bible in he li e o many Wes e n people. Likewise, i is be e o include en i onmen al
e lec ion wi hin he Ch is ian ai h g oup, due o he impo ance o en i onmen al ma e s
o human li e.
To eac o he c i ical iew and ejec ion o Ch is ian e hics in pa s o he
en i onmen al mo emen s, i seems necessa y o e iew he in e p e a ions o Ch is ian
e hics c i ically wi h hei ega d o hei inhe en en i onmen al iews.
In he ollowing e iew he con o e sial discussion o an h opocen ism in en i onmen al
e hics is in ocus, asking whe he bio- o ecocen ic e sions o en i onmen al e hics suppo
p o-en i onmen al a i udes and beha iou s, o whe he his is also possible wi h
an h opocen ic e sions? Mo eo e , whe he a e he e al e na i es o an an h opocen ic
in e p e a ion o Ch is ian e hics? Wha a e hese al e na i es, and how do hey open he
dicho omy o an h opocen ism and ecocen ism o mo e al e na i es? One o hese
al e na i es, a heocen ic pe spec i e o Ch is ian e hics, is analysed ega ding i s inhe en
iew o na u e and en i onmen al p oblems.
To highligh he impo ance o he di e en pe spec i es o en i onmen al e hics,
Pe e J. Hill (2000) a gues ha i is becoming ha de o sub ac eligion om en i onmen al
e lec ion and en i onmen alism’s e hical na u e. Indeed, mo als and e hics mus be
discussed and applied o sol e ou con empo a y ecological c isis. The spi i ual challenge o
humans oday is o apply bo h ai h and eason o ind ways o li e in ha mony wi h na u e.
I con empo a y en i onmen al p oblems a e o be sol ed, en i onmen al e hics mus be a
pa o en i onmen al educa ion and he e o o end en i onmen ally des uc i e beha iou
(Hill, 2000: 158).
E en hough Lynn Whi e’s hesis caused con o e sy in he academical discussion,
especially wi h ecological heologians, i b ough an impo an poin o he discussion: ha
en i onmen alism was, a i s co e, a eligious and e hical mo emen . The e o e, as Hill
demons a ed, Whi e’s hesis also showed he unde s anding ha en i onmen al p oblems
need o be discussed and explained no only wi h ega d o knowledge, bu also o
cosmological, eligious and e hical hinking (Jenkins, 2008: 286). In a mo e ecen s udy,
Jenkins e al. (2018) a gue ha “ ully unde s anding clima e change (…) equi es
unde s anding i s eligious aspec s, especially he way eligion is in ol ed in human
expe iences o and human esponses o clima e change” (Jenkins e al., 2018: 86).
5
Wi h he en i onmen al de as a ion ha is inc easing, Ch is ians a e also mo e and
mo e challenged o cla i y hei e hics and hei p ac ical en i onmen al beha iou wi h
ega d o en i onmen al p oblems, and o econside how hey iew en i onmen al e hics
bo h in alues and p ac ice (Ho man, Sandelands, 2005: 148). Resea che s ake he lead in
e lec ing on hese ma e s by iden i ying Ch is ian heology as a pa ne o en i onmen al
educa ion (Hi zhusen, 2007: 67). Fu he mo e, he e is an inc easing in e es wi hin Ch is ian
popula ions o pa icipa e in building an en i onmen ally sound economy (Moo e, 1990), and
in gene al ecological endea ou s (Ho man and Sandelands, 2005: 147) (Kidwell e al., 2018:
2), wi h Ch is ian associa ions such as A Rocha (Pe e Ha is, 2000), ECHO and Plan wi h
Pu pose se ing as s ong pla o ms which demons a e he ui ulness o Ch is ian
engagemen in he sol ing o en i onmen al p oblems (Lowe e al., 2021).
Howe e , his is coun e ed by ano he challenge: many Ch is ians eluc an ly
app oach en i onmen al e hical e lec ion and discussion, and exp ess conce n in alling in o
pan heis ic wo ship o na u e o e mankind and God (Ho man and Sandelands, 2005: 147).
Mo eo e , he au ho s (Kopnina e al., 2018; Ho man & Sandelands, 2005) iden i y in he
discou se o en i onmen al e hics a pola ized iew o en i onmen alism as exclusi ely
an h opocen ic o exclusi ely ecocen ic, ein o cing he iew o en i onmen alism as a
bina y opposi ion o hese wo posi ions ha exclude o he po en ial models, such as
heocen ism. This cons i u es a dilemma in he e lec ion o Ch is iani y and en i onmen al
ma e s: how no o be ay he co e ene s o he Ch is ian ai h, no o o e look and bypass
scien i ic disco e ies in he ield o Human Ecology and Ecology, such as o be able o b ing
ou he bes o bo h sides no in a usion o “g a ing” (Si ico, 1999), bu in es ablishing a
dialogue which will imp o e he a gumen s o bo h sides.
Ano he challenge which a ises is ha Ch is iani y is no ins i u ionally uni ied as a
belie sys em, bu ins ead a ai h g oup sepa a ed by undamen al di e ences in heological
in e p e a ion and beha iou , hus making i di icul o a uni ied o m o Ch is ian e hics o
become e ec i e (Engleha d J ., 2007: 25). Mo eo e , hese ami ica ions and di e ences in
in e p e a ion apply o he en i onmen al discou se as well, wi h ce ain Ch is ian g oups
appealing o en i onmen al ac ion and ecogni ion o c isis, and o he Ch is ian g oups
appealing o mo e esou ce use, oge he wi h a denial o en i onmen al science and he
iden i ied c isis (Hiebe , 2017). This b ings new challenges o an in eg a ed en i onmen al
e hic and i s p ac ice wi hin such a a ied ai h g oup.
6
The aim o his hesis is o e lec on hese dilemmas using a li e a u e e iew o s udy
and p opose possible in e p e a ions o Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics, o con ibu e o he
econcilia ion o human and na u al in e es s, o he bene i o Ch is ians and wo ship and
e e ence o God, as o a po en ial pla o m o Ch is ian pa icipa ion in en i onmen alism
and en i onmen al ac ion, and o a clea e unde s anding o Ch is iani y, an h opocen ism,
ecocen ism and heocen ism and i s ela ionship o human-na u e ela ions.
1.2 Resea ch p oblem and objec i es
1.2.1 Resea ch p oblem
The pa adigms o he discussion o en i onmen al e hics and beha iou a e
an h opocen ism, ecocen ism and heocen ism. The esea ch p oblem o he hesis is how
o in e p e he ela ions be ween hese h ee pe spec i es. One o he ques ions o add ess
is whe he he dicho omy be ween an h opocen ic and ecocen ic e hics in he discou se o
en i onmen alism co e s he ele an e hical posi ions o excludes ce ain posi ions h ough
a educ ion o a pola i y o wo pe spec i es (Ho man & Sandelands, 2005).
I may also be ha his pola i y is a b eeding g ound o dissen ion and di ides he Ch is ian
and en i onmen al mo emen s. This hesis s udies, as p oposed by Sandelands and Ho man
(2005) and Lowe e al., (2021), he model o heocen ic e hics as one o go beyond his
pola i y. Fu he mo e, i is discussed how he heocen ic model o unde s anding human-
na u e ela ionships and e hics om a Ch is ian pe spec i e can be ansla ed in o
en i onmen al beha iou and p ac ices. This equi es, beyond heo e ical e lec ion, an
a emp o ind new app oaches o apply heocen ism o e e y-day en i onmen al ac i i y,
bo h indi idually and collec i ely, as well as o s udy and assess he e ec i eness and
adequacy o exis ing app oaches: hese conside a ions will be pa o he empi ical esea ch.
1.2.2 Objec i es
The objec i es o mula ed ha e been di ided in o wo sec ions: heo e ical and
empi ical objec i es, wi h each sec ion con aining in e - ela ed objec i es o knowledge
c ea ion.
7
Al hough he e a e wo sec ions, he objec i es connec o each o he inso a as he empi ical
wo k builds upon he concep s and pe spec i es e iewed in he heo e ical objec i es.
When s udying Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics, an o e iew o he di e en e hical p oposals
(an h opocen ic, ecocen ic, heocen ic) and esponses, as well as hei applica ion o he
p ac ical sphe e, will be done h ough he heo e ical e iew, and hen he empi ical esea ch
will, h ough expe in e iews, enqui e u he abou hese p oposals and applica ions o
build upon exis ing knowledge, as well as o ga he new knowledge which is no eadily
a ailable in he li e a u e.
Theo e ical
è To e iew he li e a u e and he de elopmen o he discou se in Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hics and en i onmen al e hics in conjunc ion by e iewing he h ee
e hical pe spec i es (an h opocen ism, ecocen ism, heocen ism).
è To syn hesize he implica ions o an h opocen ism in conjunc ion wi h Ch is ian
iews and a i udes owa ds he en i onmen , and o enqui e al e na i e p oposals o
pe spec i es o Ch is ian en i onmen al pa icipa ion (ecocen ism, and
heocen ism).
è To ind ou whe he any o hese pe spec i es is sui able o e ec i e Ch is ian
en i onmen al pa icipa ion, and why.
This hi d objec i e con ains a double necessi y: sui abili y and e ec i eness o
Ch is ian popula ions, and sui abili y and e ec i eness o he en i onmen . This
esea ch p oposes ha a success ul Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic can be ound when
i is 1) adequa ely Ch is ian ( heologically, concep ually, and p ac ically adap ed o
Ch is ian amewo ks and ne wo ks) and 2) e ec i ely en i onmen al (bene icial o
he en i onmen , p oducing eal, las ing esul s wi h bene i o ecosys emic and social
communi ies).
The p oblem conce ning his poin , which will be u he discussed in he li e a u e
e iew, is ha adi ionally, hese wo necessi ies a e seen as being con adic o y and
incompa ible.
8
Howe e , his esea ch p ojec p esen s a heocen ic pe spec i e o Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hics as he pe spec i e ha can be, i no a comp ehensi e model, a
solid s a ing poin o hese wo condi ions o be ul illed.
P ac ical
è To in e iew people wi h di ec expe ience o knowledge in he ield o Ch is ian
en i onmen al pa icipa ion, as o collec knowledge on e ec i e concep s, models
and app oaches, especially conce ning he heocen ic pe spec i e.
è To ind ou how heocen ic e hical alues can be ansla ed in o p ac ical
en i onmen al ac ion.
è To examine how Ch is ian ai h, and he heocen ic pe spec i e, in o ms he
en i onmen al ac ions o people ac i ely in ol ed in Ch is ian en i onmen al
o ganiza ions.
è To conside how o he no ma i e ac o s and a iables con ibu e and in o m he
ansla ion o e hical alues in o en i onmen al ac ion.
2. Me hodology
2.1 Guiding Ques ions and Hypo hesis
2.1.1 Ques ions
The guiding ques ion o he li e a u e e iew is:
Does he heocen ic in e p e a ion o Ch is ian e hics as an al e na i e o he
an h opocen ic in e p e a ion allow o o mula e mo e con incing e hical p inciples and
a gumen s o a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic?

9
To answe his ques ion, a cla i ica ion o he ela ions be ween he h ee models o
an h opocen ic, ecocen ic, and heocen ic en i onmen al e hics is necessa y and will be
done in he li e a u e e iew.
The guiding ques ion o he empi ical esea ch is:
How can a heocen ic in e p e a ion o Ch is ian e hics suppo changes owa ds
en i onmen ally bene icial ways o li e and consump ion, so ha Ch is ian en i onmen alism
can be connec ed wi h en i onmen al p ac ice?
Addi ional ques ion:
How do o he models (an h opocen ic and ecocen ic) dialogue wi h Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hics?
In o de o answe his ques ion, a cla i ica ion o he connec ions be ween e hical
alues and no ms and p ac ical beha iou o en i onmen al ac ion is necessa y.
Human Ecology is in ol ed in he guidance o ques ions o bo h pa s o he esea ch,
as i p o ides in e disciplina y and in eg a i e modes o knowledge p oduc ion and
applica ion abou he ela ions be ween humans and he en i onmen . This hesis is based
on he Human Ecology b anch: “en i onmen al e hics”, as well as in i s con ibu ions on he
en i onmen al discou se as i pe ains o Ch is iani y.
2.1.2 Hypo hesis
The hypo hesis chosen o his hesis is he ollowing:
A heocen ic o mula ion o Ch is ian e hics allows o no el ways o a ise o he
connec ion o (a) Ch is ian e hics wi h en i onmen al e hics, and (b) o suppo o ms o
en i onmen al beha iou ha engage Ch is ian belie e s wi h p o-en i onmen al ac ion.
This hypo hesis was chosen because he e a e p oblems epo ed wi h an ex eme
an h opocen ic iew applied o Ch is ian iews and app oaches o he en i onmen (Lynn
Whi e J ., 1967). Conside ing ha he e is an “o e whelming majo i y” o ag eemen in he
iew ha an h opocen ism is p oblema ic o he en i onmen (Shklia e ski, 2021: 424), i
10
seemed impo an o conside al e na i e pe spec i es. A adi ionally p esen ed esponse o
an h opocen ism is ecocen ism (Taylo , 1986; Callico , 1998, 2010; Shklia e sky, 2021).
Howe e , ecocen ism may no su icien ly ul il he equi emen s o be a pe spec i e ha
ully a i ms he co e ene s o he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic (No hco , 1996).
Conside ing his, au ho s (Ho man & Sandelands, 2005; Hiebe , 2017; Richie, 2020; Lowe e
al., 2021) ha e p oposed a heocen ic pe spec i e as a basis o a Ch is ian en i onmen al
e hic ha ills he equi emen s o a i m he Ch is ian en i onmen al iew, and be an
adequa e and e ec i e pla o m o success ul en i onmen al ac ion.
2.2 Resea ch and Re iew Me hodology
2.2.1 Quali a i e Resea ch Design
The me hodological amewo k ha will be employed in he de elopmen o his
esea ch p ojec has i s ounda ion in an “explo a o y quali a i e s udy” model (Salmons,
2016: 27). This me hod has been deemed as adequa e o his s udy, allowing a lexible
app oach o s udying la ge amoun o unknown ( o he au ho ) quali a i e li e a u e
conce ning he opic, by cla i ying he h ee pe spec i es, ga he ing explana ions o hei
applica ion and consequences and seeking new insigh s conce ning he heocen ic
pe spec i e as a po en ial solu ion o some o hese consequences (Swa aj, 2019: 665).
Swa aj (2019: 667-668) p esen s h ee s eps in explo a o y esea ch:
- A e iew o pe inen li e a u e.
- An expe ience su ey.
- An analysis o “insigh s imula ing” cases.
The i s s ep was done in he li e a u e e iew, by explo ing he h ee pe spec i es,
hei implica ions, consequences and in e ac ions in ele an books, a icles and epo s. This
laid he g ound o u he in es iga ion, as well as solidi ying he hypo hesis.
The second s ep was done in he empi ical esea ch consis ing o quali a i e expe
in e iews, allowing o gain insigh in o he subjec o Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics,
heocen ism and he wo pe spec i es.
The hi d s ep o analyzing insigh -s imul a ing cases was done by he p ocess o
quali a i e con en analysis o he in e iew da a (Swa aj, 2019).
Al hough he explo a o y quali a i e s udy app oach allows o in-dep h in es iga ion o
quali a i e da a in p e iously unexplo ed di ec ions, i is impo an o emembe ha his
11
app oach usually leads o inconclusi e answe s, due o he na u e o quali a i e da a and
subjec i e in e p e a ion, as well as a small sample g oup no pe mi ing accu a e gene alized
esul s (Swa aj, 2019). The e o e, he answe s and esul s can be seen as ini ial esul s and
po en ial ou comes ha can be la e con i med by mo e speci ic s udies. None heless, his
me hod allows o an in e p e i is epis emology, based on how he pa icipan s build
meaning (Salmons, 2016: 27) abou Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics, en i onmen al e hics and
he h ee pe spec i es.
Mo eo e , J. A. Maxwell’s model allowed o a heu is ic ini ial amewo k and modus-
ope andi o lay he g oundwo k o he hesis. (J. A. Maxwell, 2005: 216). Th ough an in e -
ac i e p ocess o dialogue be ween he esea ch ques ions, concep ual amewo k, me hods,
goals and alidi y, he esea ch’s pilla s we e laid o subsequen in-dep h explo a ion.
G aphic 2: Maxwell’s model and i s componen s
Sou ce: Quali a i e Resea ch Design: An In e ac i e App oach, by J. A. Maxwell, 2005.
Copy igh by SAGE.
2.2.2 Li e a u e Re iew
This esea ch p ojec includes a li e a u e e iew o he concep s and models used in
Ch is ian and en i onmen al e hical models, hei ela ions and implica ions.
12
The li e a u e e iew will be done in he o m o a combined “his o ical e iew” and
“s a e-o - he-a ” e iew, which aims o co e he as discussion in he ields o Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hics and en i onmen al e hics, as well as o iden i y whe e he e a e
con e ging and non-con e ging a eas.
The his o ical e iew aims o co e he de elopmen o he discou se in he ield o
Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics and en i onmen al e hics and hei in e ac ion wi h
an h opocen ism, ecocen ism and heocen ism. This “s a e-o - he-a ” e iew is based on
e iewing cu en esea ch in his a ea by summa izing cu en and eme ging educa ional
ends, esea ch p io i ies and s anda disa ions in pa icula ields, as well as p o iding a
c i ical su ey o he li e a u e p oduced in mo e ecen imes. (Dochy, 2003)
Conside ing ha he heme o Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics and en i onmen al
e hics is ela ed o di e en discou ses and ongoing discussions, especially pe aining o
an h opocen ism, ecocen ism and heocen ism, he li e a u e e iew aims o explo e hese
ques ions and see how he di ec ion o he discou se changes o e ime, as well as o assess
i s cu en s a e. Mo eo e , Human Ecology is also in ol ed in he discussion o hese models,
especially an h opocen ism and ecocen ism, in he b anch o en i onmen al e hics.
To iden i y he li e a u e, he ollowing key-wo ds ha e been used, which will
subsequen ly be employed in academic esea ch engines:
human ecology, e hics, en i onmen al e hics, Ch is ian e hics, an h opocen ism,
ecocen ism, heocen ism. These keywo ds se e as c i e ia o ind he sou ces ele an o
he p esen discussion abou Ch is ian and en i onmen al e hics, including he wo ld iews
and pa adigms o e hical app oaches.
A e he sou cing o da a and documen s, he analysis is ca ied ou . I includes as
i s eading o he ex o iden i y i s ele ance o he hesis heme. The ea e , an analysis
o con en is done o e iew a eas o ag eemen and disag eemen in di e en o ms o
en i onmen al e hics and Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics.
2.3 In e iews
The empi ical pa o his hesis will employ a quali a i e me hod o in e iewing and da a
analysis. These quali a i e in e iews will be pe o med acco ding o he model o semi-
s uc u ed in e iews, as i p o ides bo h a gene al ixed s uc u e o ope a e om, bu also
19
o da a as o acili a e he p ocess o da a in e p e a ion and analysis, as well as p o iding
igou o he analy ic p ocess and he possibili y o iden i ying “a pic u e o he da a ha is
no easily disce nable in ansc ip o m” (Fo man & Damsch ode , 2008: 48).
The ini ial numbe o codes was 481, which we e subsequen ly educed and o ganized
in o 13 la ge hema ic ca ego ies. These codes a ise om a combina ion o induc i e and
deduc i e measu es: some ca ego ies (such as an h opocen ism, ecocen ism, heocen ism)
we e al eady p esen in he in e iew guidelines, while new ones a ise om he eading and
documen a ion o he ansc ip s. These ca ego ies and sub-codes we e compiled in o a
simple codebook which can be ound in he appendix.
A e he codes we e es ablished, and he codebook de eloped, each o he
in e iews’ ansc ip ions unde wen a p ocess o coding: his was done wi h he aid o a
p og am, “Qui kos”.
Sc eensho 1: Coding p ocess aided by Qui kos.

20
A e wa ds, code epo s we e p oduced, wi h he aid o Qui kos, o each o he
hema ic ca ego ies, and hei espec i e codes and sub-codes. (Fo man & Damsch ode ,
2008: 56). Once he code epo s we e concluded, a p ocess o w i ing desc ip i e and
in e p e i e summa ies o he epo s was done, aiming o es ablish an “in e p e a i e
na a i e” (Fo man & Damsch ode , 2008: 56).
Finally, a p ocess o d awing and e i ying conclusions acco ding o he ini ial esea ch
ques ions and objec i es was done, in o de o p oduce he conclusion ex .
3 Li e a u e Re iew and discussion o en i onmen al e hics
The c isis conce ning Ch is iani y and en i onmen alism is based on a clash o alues due
o Ch is ian an h opocen ism and he en i onmen al mo emen ’s gene al ejec ion o
an h opocen ism.
This esea ch will analyze he agen s in ol ed in his dilemma, hei cons i uen s, as well
as he ela ionship be ween hem. Mo eo e , i will e lec on he p oblems which eme ge
om hese ela ionships and e lec i exis ing pa adigms o Ch is ian o en i onmen al e hics
con ain answe s o hese p oblems. Finally, i such pa adigms o mo e speci ic models exis ,
i will be analyzed how hey can be in eg a ed in he en i onmen al discou se and in pla o ms
o communica ion and subsequen ecological ac ion.
3.1 The p oblem discussed in he li e a u e e iew
As much o he deba e conce ning he pa adigms o en i onmen al e hics conce ns
an h opocen ism, his will be a main heme o he e iew. I will be asked how he Ch is ian
wo ld iew connec s wi h en i onmen al e hics and en i onmen al conce ns.
In doing so, he eligious and spi i ual iews and alues which a e also pa o he
en i onmen al deba e can be analyzed mo e p o oundly, and po en ial answe s and u he
p ocedu es o he sol ing o oo p oblems can be ound. To do so, a ho ough examina ion
o he opic o an h opocen ism and heocen ism and how hey se e as wo Ch is ian
ecological e hical pa adigms may be help ul o unde s and he Ch is ian models o ecological
iew.
21
Fu he mo e, he e iew needs o co e he human ecological deba e abou e hics. This
can help o ind u he connec ions be ween Ch is ian, human ecological and en i onmen al
o ms o e hics. One o he b anches o Human Ecology is “en i onmen al e hics” (Al im e
al., 2014:32). Th ough human ecological ex s on en i onmen al e hics, we will e iew he
easoning abou he ela ionship be ween en i onmen alism and Ch is ian belie and e hics
o be able o answe he esea ch ques ions.
We will begin by b ie ly assessing he ela ionship be ween he Ch is ian eligion and he
ield o En i onmen al E hics, and he de elopmen o i s discou se, o a i e a a e iew o
he h ee pe spec i es, and how hey dialogue wi h Ch is iani y and En i onmen al E hics.
3.2 Ch is ian Religion and En i onmen al E hics: wha is hei ela ion and wha a e he
p oblems?
The complexi y o analyzing con empo a y en i onmen al challenges h ough he lens
o he Ch is ian sc ip u es is one o con ex and ime. Taking cul u al ac o s in o accoun , he
Bible was w i en and compiled in a p emode n Nea Eas ag a ian cul u e, whe e people’s
en i onmen al ca es and challenges we e di e en han ou s in he con empo a y u ban,
scien i ic and globalized socie y (Simkins, 2014: 399, 411). This p o ides a challenge when
a emp ing o iew he Ch is ian adi ion wi h he lens o en i onmen al e hics ha
de eloped as a specialized b anch o e hics only in he 20 h cen u y, al hough na u e and
en i onmen al issues we e e lec ed in he wide philosophy o na u e since a long ime.
Mo eo e , Ch is iani y as a ai h g oup is b oad and di e se, wi h h ee main b anches:
Ca holic, O hodox and P o es an , each wi h hei own dis inc au ho i y ins i u ions and
igu es (o lack he eo , o b anches o P o es an ism) (Richie, 2020: 32).
This e eals a di ide and a po en ial p oblem in he e lec ion and subsequen
implemen a ion o a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic o all g oups. Al hough his hesis e lec s
on he de elopmen o en i onmen al e hics, i s pa adigms, and how hey pe ain o
Ch is iani y a la ge, he spli ing in di e en Ch is ian chu ches will ha e o be aken in o
conside a ion when analyzing he ela ions be ween Ch is ian and mode n en i onmen al
e hics.
One possible app oach is o ocus on denomina ion-speci ic app oaches, such as Richie’s
app oach o e lec ing on e angelical bioe hics (2020).
22
3.2.1 Mode n en i onmen al e hics: oo s, discou se and dicho omy
En i onmen al e hics is oo ed in he b oade discipline o philosophy and is i sel a
ecen ly de eloping ield o philosophy in i s own s anding (Callico , 1998: 7). Likewise, he
epis emological and me hodological ounda ions o en i onmen al e hics a e based on
me hods o adi ional Wes e n philosophy a ising om adi ions o heo y ound in
Eu opean and Eu o-Ame ican philosophical discou se. B ie ly pu , hese me hods a e based
on he de elopmen o mo al philosophies o pin down e hical heo ies, leading o p ac ical
p ecep s, and in he epis emological assump ion o he acul y o eason as a means o inci e
and c ea e consensus, expec ing ha he philosophical ideas can be ansla ed in o di ec
indi idual ac ion which, in u n, a ec s social alues o la ge g oups. (Callico , 1998: 8)
Many ac o s p omp ed he appea ance o en i onmen al e hics as a dis inc ield o
philosophy, bu h ee impo an wo ks published in he 1960s cons uc ed he ounda ion o
en i onmen al e hical hough o de elop.
One wo k was Rachel Ca son’s book om 1962 Silen Sp ing which sough o in o m
eade s o he dange s and consequences o chemical pes icides such as DDT on ood, he
ecosys em and i s inhabi an s, especially bi ds. The book was widely ead and played an
impo an unc ion in poin ing ou he impo ance o en i onmen al ma e s. (Kawall, 2017:
13)
A second wo k was Lynn Whi e J ’s 1967 in luen ial a icle “The His o ical Roo s o Ou
Ecological C isis” which p oposed ha ce ain s ands o Ch is ian heology jus i ied
a gumen s o ha m ul and exploi a i e beha iou in he use o na u al esou ces. This
easoning includes ha abou human dominion o e na u e, and mankind being made in he
image o God as c ea ing a dualism be ween humani y and na u e. Whi e also a gued ha
due o his wo ld- iew, echnological ad ances de eloped upon a ounda ion o subduing and
con olling na u e, leading o he ecological c isis. An h opocen ism and Ch is iani y’s
associa ion and popula iza ion was, in la ge pa , due o Lynn Whi e’s pape and asse ion
ha Wes e n Ch is iani y g ea ly p omo es an h opocen ism (Lowe e al, 2021: 53).
Howe e , his a icle b ough abou many esponses om heologians, as well as nuances and
c i iques om schola s (Lowe e al, 2021: 53) which posi ed ha he Ch is ian ai h, when
p ope ly unde s ood, would os e bene olen s ewa dship o na u e, due o he inhe en
alue o goodness ha God placed in na u e.
23
This p esen hesis will expound on some o hese c i iques and nuances which we e
aised o Whi e’s a gumen o Ch is iani y as being an h opocen ic. Whi e’s a icle s i ed
up con o e sy and highligh ed impo an ques ions abou alues and wo ld iews and how
hey a e ela ed o en i onmen al deg ada ion. In e es ingly, one o he main wo ks which
con ibu ed o he de elopmen o en i onmen al e hics as a ield consis ed o a discussion
o Judeo-Ch is ian alues. Th ough his, i can be seen ha he ield o Ch is iani y and
en i onmen al e hics, o a leas hei discussions, ha e p og essed and g own hand-in-hand,
albei ensely.
The hi d c ucial wo k in he de elopmen o en i onmen al e hics was Ga e
Ha din’s 1968 “T agedy o he Commons”, which b ough abou ques ions ela ed o human
popula ion g ow h, esou ce use, and o ms o owne ship o na u al esou ces (Kawall, 2017:
13).
The discussion o hese h ee main ex s began o shape he ounda ional body o
li e a u e pe aining o en i onmen al e hics (Kawall: 2017). Fu he con ibu ions om
Rou ley’s “Las Man A gumen ” o S one’s “Should ees ha e s anding?”, o Rols on III’s “Is
he e an Ecological E hic?” b ough o he o e on a main issue (Kopnina e al., 2018: 110):
he an h opocen ic-biocen ic dicho omy p e alen in en i onmen al e hics.
An h opocen ic e hics ei he poin ed o human in e es as a means o measu e
en i onmen al ac ions by hei bene i s o humans and he ins umen al alue o na u al
esou ces o sa is ying human needs, o acco ding o measu es which humans deem as
p o i able. On he o he hand, non-an h opocen ic app oaches posi ed ha ecological alue
did no necessa ily need o be educed o human in e es s, and ha non-human beings ha e
hei own in insic alue, independen o human needs, which esul ed in an ecocen ic
wo ld iew o pa adigm. (Kawall, 2017: 15)
This dicho omy be ween an h opocen ic and non-an h opocen ic o ecocen ic
iews o na u e is in luen ial in he discou se o en i onmen al e hics. Fo example, Taylo e
al. (2020: 1094) pu o wa d ha due o he isible ailu e o an h opocen ic alues o uphold
a s able a e o en i onmen al conse a ion, ha alues o sel -in e es can be eplaced by
ecocen ism’s pe spec i e o wide mo al ho izons and inc eased compassion, which seems
o sol e he p oblems ha an h opocen ism c ea es.
This ecocen ic pe spec i e can also be seen implici ly in p oposals such as
McLaughlin’s no ion o Deep Ecology as a uni ied pla o m o adical ecological ac ion o
24
people who adhe e o he emphasis o non-an h opocen ic en i onmen al iews.
(McLaughlin, 1995: 1). The endency owa ds ecocen ic hinking has been labelled by some
as a “dogma o en i onmen al e hics”. (Kawall, 2017) (Skolimowski, 1984) (Palme e al.,
2014)
In he ield o en i onmen al e hics, he deba e be ween ecocen ic and
an h opocen ic en i onmen al e hics con inues wi h, on one side, a la ge pa o
en i onmen alis s de ending ecocen ism and c i icizing an h opocen ism, whe eas
an h opocen is s, also known as “en i onmen al p agma is s”, con inue o p opose
an h opocen ic models o e hics (Palme e al., 2014: 424). The ensions a ising om his
dicho omy esul in an o deal o he en i onmen al p ac i ione , “ eeling like hey a e in an
unending ug o wa wi h no way ou o he han o pick a place on he ope and pull o hei
side.” (Lowe e al., 2021: 51)
To no e he impo ance o his dicho omy in he de elopmen o he discou se in
en i onmen al e hics, many au ho s in ol ed wi h he ounda ions o en i onmen al e hics
a gued o he necessi y o ejec an h opocen ism i en i onmen al e hics would become a
ield o e hics in i s own s anding (Ligh , 2002: 428). Au ho s such as Benson (2000: 27) and
Ligh (2002: 429) iden i y his dicho omy as a main i wi hin he ield o en i onmen al
e hics. This i is he di ide be ween a school which posi s ha , i e ined and c i ically
analyzed, adi ional models o Wes e n e hical hough may be used and a e su icien o
guide human beha iou owa ds he na u al wo ld, and ano he school which posi s ha
adi ional o ms o Wes e n hough a e no su icien o accomplish his inso a as hey a e
i epa ably human-cen e ed, equi ing a adical o mula ion o a new e hics (Benson, 2000:
27), and ha i s ejec ion is “a necessa y p e equisi e” o doing his (Ligh , 2002: 429).
Wi hin his di ide, we can see he an h opocen ic-ecocen ic dicho omy playing a
ole in c ea ing ensions be ween an h opo- and eco-cen ic en i onmen alism. Howe e ,
au ho s such as Ho man and Sandelands (2005) a gue ha such a dicho omy ails o pe cei e
he mo e nuanced e lec ions o en i onmen al issues ha do no i in his dicho omy and
a e necessa y o unde s and he complex en i onmen al c isis wi h Lowe e . al (2021) a guing
ha he “people e sus na u e” dicho omy is based on a sel -de ea ing p emise. Ho man
and Sandelands see his dicho omy as a ising om he 20 h cen u y ea ly “wa o wo ds,
alues, and ideals” in he en i onmen al, academic and poli ical sphe es. (Ho man and
Sandelands, 2005: 143). Such a clash o alues which led o an ongoing deba e be ween

25
an h opocen ic and ecocen ic alues which is ye o be sol ed (Ho man and Sandelands,
2005: 144) is s ill e iden in he en i onmen al ield. E en wi hin eligious s udies he e a e
deba es, wi h mo e an h opocen ic o mula ions, and mo e ecocen ic o mula ions o
heology. (No hco , 1996) These o mula ions and heological schools a e usually pi ing
agains each o he , and deba es ensue acco ding o he pola i y o his dicho omy. (Ho man
and Sandelands, 2005: 147)
This an h opocen ism-ecocen ism dicho omy has, by some, been iden i ied as an
ex ension o he cul u e-na u e dualism (Kopnina, 2016: 417). Howe e , Kopnina a gues ha
such dicho omies could be necessa y due o he in o ma ion ga he ed in he dis inc ion and
con as o ideas in he sphe e o en i onmen al discussion, and concludes by p oposing he
necessi y o s onge and s u die o ms o e lec ing human-en i onmen al ela ionships in
a bioe hical posi ion ha simul aneously includes he needs o o he species and he necessi y
o jus ice o humans and non-humans. (Kopnina, 2016: 426)
As No hco (1996) p oposes, he complexi y o such an endea ou is based on mic o-
in e ac ions and local ela ionships be ween membe s o communi ies and hei su ounding
ecosys ems. While au ho s wi hin en i onmen al e hics such as Kopnina (2016) and
Washing on e al. (2021) a gue o he necessi y o an ecocen ic en i onmen al e hic o
ex end alue o non-human beings and he ecosys em a la ge, o he au ho s such as
No hco (1996) and Richie (2020) p opose mo e heocen ically-based models o
en i onmen al e hics o Ch is ian popula ions, e ealing ha he ei he /o dicho omy o
an h opocen ism-ecocen ism may be simplis ic and ha o he al e na i es exis , and should
be s udied as hey pe ain o he speci ic “en i onmen s” o ce ain communi ies, especially
o Ch is ian popula ions and he speci ic peculia i ies o his communi y.
An example o his is ound in a s udy in Schul z e al. (2000) who use he New
En i onmen al Pa adigm, as well as he Thompson and Ba on’s ecocen ism and
an h opocen ism scales o assess he ela ion be ween Ch is ian belie s and a i udes o
en i onmen al conce n. Howe e , such an app oach migh no ake in o conside a ion he
complexi y o Ch is ian iews o na u e, by pu ing hem in o a s ic an h opocen ic –
ecocen ic dicho omy, whe e he o me is seen as an i-en i onmen al and he la e as p o-
en i onmen al.
We will now mo e on o a mo e de ailed e iew o he di e en o ms o
en i onmen al e hics and how hey connec o Ch is ian e hics, so ha hey can be e iewed
26
indi idually, bu also in conjunc ion, o de elop and di e en ia e he discou se o
en i onmen al e hics.
3.3 The h ee pa adigms and hei ela ionships
3.3.1 An h opocen ism in Ch is iani y and En i onmen alism
His o ically, discussions on Ch is iani y and en i onmen al e hics ha e de eloped
hand in hand, albei in a seemingly con as ing and ense way. Much o his con as and
ension a ises om a main no ion: an h opocen ism, he belie ha only humans ha e
in insic alue, and ha all o he beings a e means o human ends. (Kopnina e . al., 2018), o
“ he wo ld iew ha assigns he sup eme place o humans and human alues in he uni e se.”
(Shklia e sky, 2021: 425).
The no ion o an h opocen ism is impo an in he e lec ion o en i onmen al e hics,
as i is in he e lec ion o Ch is ian e hics: bo h a eas in e sec and need o communica e
h ough he o ganiza ion o dialogues. As a gene al obse a ion, an h opocen ic e hics ei he
poin ed o human in e es as a means o measu e ecological ac ions by hei human
con ibu ion and ins umen al alue, o he p o i able use o na u al esou ces. (Kawall, 2017:
15)
In he de elopmen o en i onmen al e hics, an h opocen ism has changed i s ole
in social hough , shi ing om an unques ioned “social dogma” ha i had be o e mode n
en i onmen alism in Wes e n hinking and wo ld iews o some hing ha is con o e sially
deba ed. Junghyung Kim (2018) iden i ies ha un il he Medie al e a, an h opocen ism was
aken a ace alue and no ques ioned by many, bu wi h he un olding o ime and
de elopmen o na u al sciences and i s pa adigms, challenges o he no ion o
an h opocen ism we e a ising, now classi ied as “ancien ”. (Kim, 2018: 549). This shows he
de elopmen and change o he ole o an h opocen ism in social hough , going om a
“common good” o some hing ha is dispu ed.
In en i onmen al e hics, leading oices such as Rols on (1991) s a e he impo ance o
non-an h opocen ism as a base o he de elopmen o an en i onmen al e hic. To illus a e
he impo ance o an h opocen ism o he ield o en i onmen al e hics, Thompson (2017:
77) s a es ha i en i onmen al e hics could be summa ized in one ques ion, i could be: “Is
an h opocen ism he ideological sou ce o ou en i onmen al p oblems?” I can be added
ha Wes e n cul u e based on Wes e n de elopmen s o he Ch is ian eligion has been
27
his o ically known o being “ he mos an h opocen ic eligion he wo ld has seen,” as
p oposed by Lynn Whi e in his seminal essay which has ing ained in he en i onmen al
discou se a end o hough ha claims Ch is iani y os e s des uc i e en i onmen al
a i udes (Shklia e sky, 2021: 427).
Th ough hese wo examples we can see how di icul i may be o conside hese wo
ields h ough he lens o en i onmen al e hics. (Kidwell e al., 2018: 1)
The idea o Ch is ian eligion’s incompa ibili y wi h en i onmen alism due o
an h opocen ism was no a passing ad, bu some hing ha emains in he ecological
discou se and academic hough o his day. (Shklia e sky, 2021: 427). This “an i-
an h opocen ic” hinking is p esen in ecological app oaches such as he new ecological
pa adigm (NEP), which has become he dominan pa adigm o analysis o measu e
en i onmen al a i udes and in o ms en i onmen al educa ion based on a “non-
an h opocen ic” wo ld iew. This in e p e a ion and iewpoin o con empo a y ecological
hough , as e lec ed in he NEP, is a di ec odds wi h Ch is ian e hical doc ines, making he
in eg a ion o Ch is ian e hics in en i onmen al e hics di icul (Hi zhusen, 2007), as can be
seen in Schul z e al.’s (2000) app oach which s udied Ch is ian en i onmen al conce n
h ough he an h opocen ic – ecocen ic lens p esen in he New En i onmen al Pa adigm
and Thompson and Ba on’s ecocen ism and an h opocen ism scales. In his s udy hey
concluded ha hei esul s “p o ide s ong e idence ha a li e al belie in he Bible is
nega i ely ela ed o ecocen ic en i onmen al conce ns and posi i ely ela ed o
an h opocen ic conce ns” (Schul z e al., 2000: 590).
Pe e J. Hill (2000), and a ious au ho s wi hin en i onmen al e hics explain how
an h opocen ism has been commonly used o o mula e he cause (o one o he causes) o
he en i onmen al c isis, wi h such an h opocen ism blamed as a ising om a Judeo-
Ch is ian wo ld iew (Hill, 2000; Benson, 2000: 127; Washing on e al., 2021: 287;
Shklia e sky, 2021).
Fi s igge ed by Lynn Whi e’s hesis, he an i-en i onmen al epu a ion o Ch is iani y
emains in he public mind. Whi e’s hesis emains bo h a “canon” in en i onmen al s udies
o analyzing Ch is ian hinking and an h opocen ism, and an impo an u n which inc eased
he hea ed deba e be ween Ch is ian e hics and en i onmen alism. Whi e’s hesis posi ed
ha i was due o ce ain de i a ions (especially Wes e n) o Ch is ian an h opocen ic
pe spec i es ha he idea o na u e’s sole alue as exis ing only o ul ill man’s needs and
28
wan s a ised, hus jus i ying a ha m ul and exploi a i e a i ude owa d he na u al wo ld
(Kawall, 2017).
These co e Ch is ian p ecep s a e p esen ed by G asse (2016: 3), who poin s o he
doc ines o imago dei and dominion as being an h opocen ic doc ines which enable he
au ho i y o use na u e o human ends. (G asse, 2016: 3) Al hough G asse does no equa e
an h opocen ism wi h “a nega i e o ce”, bu iews i as some hing o be ca e ully egula ed,
he sugges s ha we ha e a ole o play “ ha equi es mo e om us han apa hy” (G asse,
2016: 8). He also p oposes ha one o he ways o egula e “an h opocen ism is o engage
wi h ideas ou side o an h opocen ism” (G asse, 2016: 8). Doing so migh be p o i able,
inso a as G asse’s a gumen o an h opocen ism “indispu ably” embedded wi hin co e
Ch is ian eachings (G asse, 2016: 3) can be challenged by a heocen ic in e p e a ion o
hese co e alues, such as Lowe e al.’s (2021). Whe eas G asse (2016) akes i o g an ed
ha an h opocen ism is inhe en ly embedded wi hin he co e Ch is ian eachings, ha is no
a consensually-held iew wi hin he schola ly communi y. This esea ch p ojec will conside
he o mula ions and implica ions o heocen ic in e p e a ions o he imago dei and
dominion doc ines, among o he s, which do no lead o G asse’s de ini ion o an
an h opocen ic wo ld iew s a ing ha “humankind is he mos signi ican en i y in he
uni e se” (G asse, 2016: 2).
To illus a e how he Ch is ian adi ion has been associa ed wi h an h opocen ism
and en i onmen al dis ega d, s udies such as Snodg ass and Ga es’ (1998) ha e ound ha
he e exis s a co ela ion be ween doc inal o hodoxy, eligious o ien a ion and
an h opocen ic iews, sugges ing ha Ch is ian hinking has a di ec link o
an h opocen ism, and ha his an h opocen ism may lead o en i onmen al dis ega d.
Mo eo e , Snodg ass and Ga es (1998: 234) p o ide o he s udies, showing ha he
ela ionship be ween doc inal o hodoxy and an h opocen ic beha iou s was ound o be
ecu en . (Hand & Van Lie e, 1984; Eckbe g & Blocke , 1989; Gu h e al., 1993, ci ed by
Snodg as & Ga es, 1998). When he e ec s o Ch is ian hinking in p ac ice a e s udied, a lack
o posi i e en i onmen al beha iou and engagemen was ound, especially wi h o hodox
eadings and an h opocen ic in e p e a ions.
Washing on e al. (2021) ake i u he by exposing ha m ul e ec s o
an h opocen ism, such as educed compassion and empa hy o nonhuman na u e, and a
loss o ouch wi h ou being. This ejec ion o an h opocen ism and he decline in chu ch
35
3.3.2 Eco-cen ism p esen ed as a solu ion o he en i onmen al c isis
As a esponse o an h opocen ism and i s limi a ions, many oices wi hin he
en i onmen al ield p opose a second pa adigm o en i onmen al e hics: ecocen ism
(Shklia e sky, 2021: 447). This esponse is based on a sea ch o ackle spi i ual and e hical
issues o humani y’s es angemen om na u e, and by doing his, an inc eased conce n o
he land’s, o na u e’s alue a ises. (No hco , 1996: 106)
Al hough he scope o discussion in en i onmen al e hics is b oad, a i s co e, i is a
esponse o an h opocen ism, e lec ing on mo al alue and i s ela ion o human and non-
human species. The e o e, i ends mo e owa ds ecocen ic app oaches and models, while
ejec ing an h oponcen ic app oaches. (Callico , 1998: 10). This endency can be obse ed
in main s ands o en i onmen al e hical hinking, such as Singe ’s animal libe a ion o Tom
Regan’s animal igh s app oach, which a e based on nonan h opocen ic mo al philosophies.
(Callico , 1998: 9). Simila a gumen s a e also ound in o he c i iques o an h opocen ism,
which a ise om en i onmen al e hical oo s as a esponse o p e ailing Wes e n modes o
mo al philosophy which ocuses p ima ily on human indi iduals. When en i onmen al e hics
sough o analyze hese Wes e n modes o mo al philosophy, a clash o alues, a ises, leading
o he challenging and c i iquing o an h opocen ic e hical hough by en i onmen al e hics.
(Zimme man, 1998: 2)
This mo emen may be seen in many w i e s’ (Leopold, 1949; 2019; Callico ,
2010;Lo elock, 2000; Naess & Sessions, 1984; Taylo , 1986) p oposals o en i onmen al
e hics which esul in a u ning away om an h opocen ic o ecocen ic modes o ecological
wo ld iews.
Aldo Leopold’s Land E hic om 1949, a p ominen ex in en i onmen al e hics
edisco e ed a e a pe iod o neglec in he 1970s (Kawall, 2017: 17), in luenced
en i onmen al hinking and discou se p o oundly by p o iding a biocen ic model o
en i onmen al e hics. Leopold a gued o a econnec ion o humans and na u e wi h he help
o such a model. He c i icizes mode n socie y’s ela ions wi h na u e o i s ecological
unsus ainabili y and un ui ulness. This c i icism is based on he hesis ha ou
con empo a y dominan wo ld iew is an unheal hy combina ion o biblical human
excep ionalism and consume ism, which is deemed o be unsui able o he de elopmen o
conse a ion alues (Callico , 2022).

36
Essen ially, Leopold pu o h he gene al e hical p inciple ha “A hing is igh when
i ends o p ese e he in eg i y, s abili y, and beau y o he bio ic communi y. I is w ong
when i ends o he wise.” (Leopold, 1949: 14), Fo him, humans bea bo h he possibili y and
he du y o ex end hei mo al communi y o include he land, wi h i s conside a ion eaching
beyond human ins umen ali y (Kawall, 2017: 17). These s a emen s e eal he main poin o
an ecocen ic e hical wo ld iew, ha e hical e lec ions and conside a ions should be made
in di ec ela ion o he way ha such e hics a ec he en i onmen : he conside a ion o he
in insic alue o he whole ecosys em. (Nwokoye, 2021: 130) The e o e, acco ding o Land
E hic and ecocen ic iews, he p inciple mo al du y o humani y is o p ese e ecosys em and
species balance, ins ead o indi idual plan s o animals. This leads o conside a ions such as
he limi a ion o human numbe s as an e hical du y, due o en i onmen al imbalances which
a ise om o e -popula ion, which is also subsequen ly e lec ed upon in Ha din’s (1968)
T agedy o he Commons.
The main ene o Leopold’s Land E hic was he e hical impo ance o he in eg i y and
s abili y o he land communi y, as opposed o he impo ance o human indi iduals o human
communi ies (No hco , 1996: 107; Kawall 2017: 17). C i ics soon a gued ha such an
ex emely bio-cen ic o m o e hics paid oo li le impo ance o indi iduals, wi h conce ns
o “eco- ascism”. Howe e , Callico , one o he mo e well-known philosophe s p omo ing
land e hics, soon de eloped and e ined he land e hic’s iew o add ess hese conce ns
(Kawall, 2017: 18). Callico ’s impo ance wi hin en i onmen al e hics de i es om his
easoning as a p oponen o ecocen ism as a iable, ecologically bene icial al e na i e o
an h opocen ic models. By con inuing o build upon Leopold’s e lec ions, Callico p oposed
he land e hic and ecocen ic models as philosophical and e hical posi ions o en i onmen al
e hics (Nwokoye, 20201: 132), seeking o de elop and e ine he ecocen ic easoning (Taylo
e al., 2020: 1093).
Ano he p ominen oice in en i onmen al e hics is James Lo elock wi h he Gaia
hypo hesis, which ex ends he gene al p inciples o Leopold’s land e hic in o molecula ,
chemical and s uc u al p ocesses o he ea h sys em, leading o a iew o he plane as a
sel - egula ing sys em able o c ea e h ough eedback homeos asis and long- e m
37
sus ainabili y. He de i es om his iew a human e hical du y o pa icipa e and ac
consciously in his p ocess (No hco , 110: 1996).
Deep Ecology is ano he p ominen app oach o ecocen ic en i onmen al e hics,
which is based on he same p inciples as he Land E hic and he Gaia hypo hesis, bu
elabo a es he impo ance o human consciousness and pe sonal and communal
en i onmen al e lec ion (Sessions, 172: 1998), as o mula ed in an eigh -poin pla o m
e ined in 1984 by Naess and Sessions (Kawall, 2017: 19). Naess’ posi ion is ha he
en i onmen al c isis de i es om he indi idualis ic concep ion o he “sel ” p edominan in
Wes e n modes o philosophical hinking. He means ha he oo o he p esen
en i onmen al c isis is one o iden i ica ion, which ails o combine human in e es s wi h he
espec o in e es s o o he li ing beings. The e o e, a undamen al e hical p inciple o Naess’
pe sonal Deep Ecology a ian (ecosophy) is he s i ing o he ul illmen o he “ ue sel ”
by means o bene icial and help ul ac ions o o he sel es and na u e. (No hco , 1996: 113-
113). As opposed o “shallow ecology”, he “deep ecological mo emen ” was p oposed by
Naess as a means o summa ize many o he indings o he ecological mo emen s which
de eloped since he 60s, as well as he e lec ions and expe iences o p e ious au ho s,
especially Rachel Ca son. (Sessions, 172: 1998)
Ano he impo an oice wi hin ecocen ic modes o en i onmen al e hics is Paul W.
Taylo who, in his 1986 wo k “Respec o Na u e”, p oposed a biocen ic model o
en i onmen al e hics “s uc u ally symme (ical)” o human e hics, d awing om h ee main
p inciples: “belie -sys em, ul ima e mo al a i ude, se o mo al ules and s anda ds”. (Taylo ,
1986). Taylo (1986: 46) a gued ha a pe son has “ espec o na u e” when i pe cei es o he
species’ alue no based on hei ins umen al u ili y o he ends o o he species (human and
non-human). Wi h his, espec o na u e implies ha o he species a e no means, bu
inhe en ly aluable ends in hemsel es. In Taylo ’s wo k one can ind some impo an ea u es
which he deems impo an o biocen ic e hics. Fi s ly, he a gues ha he biocen ic iew
encou ages people o iew exis ence as an independen ela ion be ween pa s, leading o an
in eg a ed iew o na u e as a complex and connec ed web (Taylo , 2000: 215). Secondly, he
pu s o wa d ha biocen ic iews encou age e lec ion on each li ing being as a uni ied
sys em o cohe en ac i i y, bea ing a eleological endency owa ds he p ese a ion o i s
38
exis ence by de ending and p omo ing i s well-being. (Taylo , 2000: 216). Thi dly, and
connec ed o he wo p e ious p inciples, such a iew aims o ex end human conside a ion
o i sel o all species, by ecognizing ha all species ha e a eleological endency o main ain
hei own well-being, jus as humans do. This allows o c ea e a pla o m o e lec ion whe e
humans iew o he species as hey iew hemsel es. (Taylo , 2000: 216). Acco ding o Taylo
(2000), a biocen ic iew including hese p emises aims o challenge and disca d he no ion
o human beings as bea ing supe io i y o e o he li ing hings, he e o e o e coming
an h opocen ic endencies which a e deemed ha m ul o he en i onmen .
Rols on III c ea es u he e lec ions on en i onmen al e hics, and, in e es ingly, on
Ch is ian hinking. Mo eo e , he is conside ed one o he ounde s o he ield o
en i onmen al e hics and emains one o he ield’s o e on hinke s. Rols on (2000) a gues
ha an analysis o na u e may lead o a be e unde s anding o mo als, and ha na u e
p o ides aluable insigh o human mo al e lec ion and guidance. He gi es an example o he
human inclina ion o o mula e spi i ual me apho s and allego ies based on na u al elemen s
and e en s such as “s o my wea he ” o desc ibe a u bulen li e, o “a ock” o e e o
s eng h o cha ac e . (Rols on, 2000: 237). Rols on p oposes ha human cul u al li e and
e lec ion is in e wined wi h na u e, and ha he unde s anding o i s hy hms and changes
o na u e is wha allows us o build a good li e. Howe e , he u ges ha human li e mus also
be good o i s su ounding ecosys em. (Rols on, 2000: 238) In his sense Rols on iews
human-na u e ela ionships as an exchange which should no be one-sided, bu jus as
humans ecei e and lou ish om na u e, so should humans sea ch o gi e o na u e and help
na u e lou ish. Mo al i ue, o Rols on a ises om, al hough is no exclusi ely based on,
he “a unemen ” and sensi i i y o hese na u al dynamics. (Rols on, 2000: 238-239).
Howe e , Rols on’s app oach di e s om a adi ional adical ecocen ic o ms o
en i onmen al e hics inso a as he makes a dis inc ion be ween lowe animal le els o mo al
conduc and human mo al le els: hey should no be inapp op ia ely mixed as hey di e in
unc ion. Wha is igh and app op ia e o one le el is no o he o he ; hey need o be
ca e ully analyzed, implying ha human mo al capaci ies exceed na u e, especially due o
eason and conscience. (Rols on, 2000: 240). Rols on a emp s o apply he human easoning
and capaci ies o disce nmen o disca d a oman icized iew o na u e. Fo Rols on na u e is
some hing ha opposes li e h ough an inc ease o en opy, bu also ou na u al en i onmen
and “bosom”, ou li e pa ne and a pa o li e which is necessa y o us. Wi h his, Rols on
39
concedes ha he does no ind na u e beau i ul and signi ican in all places, and ha some
na u al e en s such as mala ia, in es inal pa asi es and gene ic de o mi ies inspi e eelings o
e icence. (Rols on, 2000: 241) Howe e , Rols on pu s o wa d ha na u e is no p ima ily a
ha binge o en opy and dea h, bu o li e.
3.3.2.1 Limi a ions o ecocen ic philosophies and an h opocen ic-ecocen ic dicho omies
The a ian s o ecocen ic e hics a e u he expounded in No on’s (1995) c i ical
e lec ion abou monis ecocen ic e hics and hei in en ion o a uni ica ion o non-
an h opocen ic holis ic en i onmen al e hics, bu ailing o e lec abou e hical p inciples
expe ienced in a ied communi ies (No on, 1995: 1).
No hco oices a simila sen imen in analyzing ha ce ain o ms o ecocen ic models,
especially in hei mo e mys ic in ep e a ions a e p one o a uni e salizing oneness in which
bounda ies be ween human and non-human beings dissol e, and a e eplaced by an all-
emb acing pan heis ic p inciple. He a gues ha he applica ion o Gaian pan heism (o
panen heism) isks he wiping ou o di e ences be ween speci ic ecosys ems, ca ego ies,
a i y and o de o li e, as well as o he dis inc i eness o social adi ions, cul u es and e hics
which sus ain human-na u e ela ionships. (No hco , 113: 1996) In applica ion o Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hics, monis o ms o en i onmen al e hics may no wo k well in ansla ing
hem o Ch is ians and hei speci ic social adi ions, cul u es and e hics, based on he
Ch is ian sc ip u es, which in o m hei ecosys em ela ionships and iews.
To unde s and his be e , i is impo an o analyze main o ms o ecocen ic
en i onmen al e hics in ela ion o Ch is ian hinking and e hics o see whe e hey con e ge,
di e ge, and e en p o e limi ing o Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics.
Beginning wi h Leopold’s Land E hic, an impo an a ian o ecocen ic en i onmen al
e hics, i can be said ha i is an e hic which has some pa allels wi h he Ch is ian adi ion.
No hco (1996: 108) p o ides an examina ion o he Land E hic’s emphasis o he land wi h
he Heb ew impo ance o he land as God’s gi . This mo al alue o he land is impo an
h oughou he sc ip u es o he Is aeli es, and hen, in he ea ly Ch is ian adi ion, which
de elops and spi i ualizes o he nomadic g oup o belie e s known as he chu ch, de eloping
in o a mo e spi i ual, less ma e ial and p o incial adi ion. (No hco , 1996) (Rols on, 1992:
40
122) Howe e , in he Ch is ian adi ion, he Heb ew a i udes o he land’s alue soon e u n
when Ch is ian acquisi ion and inhabi a ion o land became common p ac ice, especially in
subsequen ea ly monas ical adi ions, bo h in dese -dwelling and ag icul u al communi ies
(No hco , 1996: 108). This shows ha he e hical alue o he land and human-na u e e hical
ela ionships ha e emained impo an wi hin he de elopmen o he Ch is ian adi ion,
emaining a ele an opic pe inen wi hin he Ch is ian and Heb ew sc ip u es. (No hco ,
1996: 109).
As a whole, Leopold’s ecocen ic model o en i onmen al e hics is no comple ely
compa ible wi h he Ch is ian e hic, due o he exclusi e ocus o mo al alue in he bio ic
communi y o he land and s abili y o ecosys ems. In con as o his easoning, No hco
(1996) a gues ha he Ch is ian wo ld iew links human e hics and social ela ions di ec ly o
land e hics, in he sense ha human con idence and igh -s anding wi h God, along wi h he
abiding o God’s p inciples as ound in he Ch is ian sc ip u es is a la ge pa o wha b ings
ecological es o a ion o he land. No hco illus a es his by poin ing ou o a link o
causali y, whe e social e hical ac i i y has e ec s on he en i onmen , such as human injus ice
and e hical deg ada ion ha can be p ecu so s o ecological de as a ion. Howe e , his
ecological de as a ion does no esul di ec ly om a dis ega d o he in eg i y o he bio ic
communi y, bu a ailu e o upkeep and main ain adi ional human socie ies by means o
e hical p inciples o cohabi a ion (No hco , 1996: 109). This is u he e lec ed upon when
conside ing ha Leopold may no ha e econciled he complex implica ions o he
an h opocen ic-ecocen ic dicho omy by s a ing ha humans bo h ha e esponsibili y o
he conse a ion o he land and a e “plain membe s and ci izens o i ”. (Lowe e . al., 2021:
51 (ci ing Leopold, 1949))
Jus as wi h he Land E hic, No hco inds ce ain pa allels be ween Lo elock’s Gaia
hypo hesis and p ominen ene s o Heb ew (and subsequen ly Ch is ian) cosmo- ision o he
land such as he ea h’s sys emic homeos a ic in e ac i i y and in e - ela ionali y wi h human
agency (No hco , 1996: 110). Howe e , such an app oach is no consis en wi h he Heb ew
emphasis on he e hical impo ance o human li e o God’s pu poses. This is mo e e iden ly
seen in Lo elock’s idea o humans being e adica ed om he ea h as an in asi e o ganism,
which he ea h igh s o as a disease. A Judeo-Ch is ian app oach does no de elop such an
ex eme ecocen ic pe spec i e, bu ins ead ega ds human li e as p ecious and aluable o
God.

41
Al hough Lo elock did no openly a gue o o suppo such ideas, subsequen mys ical
in e p e a ions o he Gaia hypo hesis’ ecocen ism a e inconsis en wi h he Judeo-Ch is ian
dis inc ions o species. As No hco a gues, hese in e p e a ions may end o a uni e salising
mys ical oneness in which bounda ies be ween human and non-human li e a e los , eplaced
by an all-emb acing pan heis ic p inciple, hus isking o neglec impo an dis inc ions
be ween ecosys ems, ca ego ies, a ie y and o de o li e, as well as he dis inc i e na u e o
social adi ions, cul u es and e hics which sus ain heal hy human-na u e ela ionships.
(No hco , 1996: 113)
Fu he mo e, No hco inds pa allels be ween Deep Ecology and his o mula ion o
Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics such as he mo al and spi i ual impo ance o ela ionships as
indica o s o lou ishing, bo h social and na u al. On he o he hand, No hco p oposes ha ,
jus as o he ecocen ic app oaches, Deep Ecology is disjoin ed wi h Ch is ian en i onmen al
e hics, especially as i pe ains o he idea o sel - ealisa ion and he expansion o he sel o
he whole o na u e. No hco uses Plumwood’s a gumen o unde mining eal di e ences
be ween human sel es and non-human beings, and con inues by p oposing ha Deep
Ecology’s e hical ocus lies in a ques o oneness, bu i isks alling in o a “ emaking o na u e
in he image o he indi idua ed human sel ” (No hco , 1996: 115). As di e ence mel s in o
sameness, “ he colonializa ion o o he as sel ” isks bypassing and e en ually igno ing
undamen al indi idual and in e - ela ional di e ences, cha ac e is ics and modes o being
which a e necessa y o be e ained o heal hy human-na u e ela ionships. (No hco , 1996:
115)
Howe e , his c i icism, e en hough bea ing pe inen implica ions o he opic o Ch is iani y
and how i ela es o ecocen ic app oaches, ails o add ess he signi ican di e ence in Deep
Ecology be ween he ounda ional pla o m based on he eigh -p inciples, and Naess’
pe sonal ecosophy which is e e ed o as “ecosophy T”.
As Sessions (1998) explains, he e is a widesp ead con usion when i comes o analyzing Deep
Ecology and wha i pe ains o: his is, he di e ence be ween Naess’ di e en o mula ions
o Deep Ecology pa adigms, namely: he o iginal 1972 shallow-deep ecology pape , he eigh -
poin deep ecology pla o m (1984), and Naess’ pe sonal Ecosophy T. (Sessions, 1998: 172-
173). The 1972 pape se es as an ini ial ounda ion o he Deep Ecology mo emen , which
was hen e o mula ed in he “eigh -poin pla o m”. (Sessions, 1998: 173) McLaughlin (1995;
2010) e e s o he eigh -poin pla o m as “ he hea o Deep Ecology”, which consis s o
42
“in e - ela ed ac ual and no ma i e claims” abou human-na u e ela ionships, wi h he goal
o p o iding as a base o uni y o people who ad oca e nonan h opocen ism bo h
heo e ically and p ac ically, h ough di ec social ac ion (McLaughlin, 1995: 1). Ecosophy, on
he o he hand, is a subjec i e o m o en i onmen al e lec ion which may be aided by he
eigh -poin pla o m.
While c i icizing Deep Ecology’s “ques o sel - ul ilmen ” and monis endencies, No hco
ails o s a e he di e ence be ween Naess’ pe sonal ecosophy, and he ounda ional
s uc u es o Deep Ecology, which a e no an o ganized philosophical sys em, bu a sha ed
pla o m o he de elopmen , o ganiza ion and uni ica ion o di ec social ac ion in he
sphe e o en i onmen alism (McLaughlin, 1995: 5). Howe e , since, Naess’ ecosophical
p inciple o “sel - ealiza ion” and “oneness” has been academically mixed wi h he Deep
Ecology mo emen , No hco s ill add esses a phenomena which exis s in discou se,
especially in ecocen ic in e p e a ions based on Deep Ecology’s eigh -poin p inciples.
To e lec u he on No hco ’s c i icism conside ing his dis inc ion, need o be shown he
inconsis encies be ween Ch is ian e hics and Naess’ and o he ecocen ic hinke s pe sonal
ecosophies, which con ain hei own speci ic eligious and spi i ual p inciples and belie s.
While No hco ’s o iginal c i icism may be heo e ically misplaced wi h ega d o he
ounda ional amewo k o Deep Ecology, and la e social and philosophical e lec ions o
Deep Ecology, i s ill add esses he ecocen ic “expansions o sel ” in eco-philosophies which
de eloped om he Deep Ecology pla o m (McLaughlin, 1995: 5), and i calls o a c i ical
econside a ion o ecological monism’s colonizia ion “o o he as sel ” by a “ emaking o
na u e in he image o he indi idua ed human sel ” (No hco , 1996: 115).
The isk o his is desc ibed by No hco as he bypassing and e asing o undamen al social
and ecosys emic indi idual and in e - ela ional di e ences, cha ac e is ics and modes o
beings which a e necessa y o be e ained o c ea e heal hy human-na u e in e ac ions.
This is whe e No hco ’s con ibu ion o he discussion p o es in e es ing: inding a
pa allel be ween con empo a y ecological hinking in ecocen ic models and eas e n monis
hinking. Whe e in Eas e n eligions he concep o he “One” can be iden i ied, so do
p e alen modes o Wes e n ecocen ic ecology include implica ions o na u e as he “One”,
po en ially leading o a neglec o speci ic pe sonal, spacial and empo al di e ences ha
c ea e iden i ica ion, and a o he na u e o agen s in ol ed in he en i onmen al des uc ion
43
p ocess. An example is he des uc ion o indigenous people’s na u al habi a s by a away
colonial ade s, o con empo a y mul ina ionals o poli ical agen s loca ed housands o
kilome es away (No hco , 1996: 119). In no conside ing such p oblems, he monis
ecocen ic iew ails o iden i y he ela ional and pe sonal cha ac e o human li e as well as
i s e hical consequences, complexi ies and p oblems and how hey pe ain o he
en i onmen . As a consequence, No hco p oposes ha a monis ecocen ic e hic may no
se e well as a pla o m o he de elopmen o lo e and ca e o pa icula pa s o he ea h,
and pa icula iden i y o pe sons closely linked and o med in ela ion o hei immedia e
su oundings.
In line wi h Gun on’s a gumen ha Ch is iani y gua ds indi idual signi icance om a
pan heis ic me ging o he many (No hco e e encing Gun on, 1996: 113), No hco
p oposes, ins ead o a pu ely ecocen ic o m o e hics, o pay mo e a en ion o he e hical
dimension add essing he upkeeping o heal hy social ela ions including God, hus assu ing
he ul ima e success o ecological p ese a ion by aking in o accoun he complexi y o he
in e connec i i y o social o de and ecosys em p ese a ion. Addi ionally, he a gues ha a
pu e ecocen ic land e hic may be limi ed inso a as i may only be p ac ically applicable o
small ecological ese es o con olled na u al pa k en i onmen s such as ha wi h which
Leopold was amilia wi h. (No hco , 1996: 110)
To coun e ac he desc ibed p oblems in ol ed in ecocen ism wi h i s endency o
homogenise human and na u e as “one”, No hco (1996) pu s o wa d a biblical wo ld iew
which p esen s he land as an e hical agen o i s own quali y as well as pa o he e hical
communi y, wi h necessa y e hical conside a ions owa ds which a e o be had by humans in
ligh o God and e ela ion in he sc ip u es. This e lec ion implies ha he Ch is ian adi ion
p o ides a na u al law which may be mo e help ul han ecocen ic egali a ian alue heo y in
he o de ing and o ganizing o mo al goods and alues o humans, na u e, and he ela ions
be ween hese (No hco , 1996: 163). Howe e , as we ha e seen, a s ic ly an h opocen ic
in e p e a ion o he Ch is ian sc ip u es p esen s some challenges o en i onmen al
pa icipa ion. The e o e, his hesis p esen s a heocen ic in e p e a ion o he Ch is ian
sc ip u es and adi ions, which may p o e well as a pla o m o ecological e lec ion and
ac ion o Ch is ians.
44
3.3.3 Going beyond he dicho omy: In oducing heocen ism
By expounding on exis ing o ms and discussions pe aining o heocen ic
en i onmen al e hics, his sec ion will a emp o explo e he Ch is ian wo ld iew, i s e hics
and how i ela es o en i onmen al e hics. By unde s anding heocen ic e hics h ough a
e iew o he exis ing li e a u e, i is in ended o ind ou how Ch is ian wo ld iews and hei
pa icula i ies i o heocen ic e hics as a uni ying pe spec i e, and how such heocen ic
e hics may e en ually be applied in p ac ice.
Ha ing analyzed an h opocen ism, i s ela ionship o Ch is iani y and
en i onmen alism wi h i s plu ali y o iews and con as ing app oaches, as well as
ecocen ism and i s implica ions o Ch is iani y and en i onmen alism, i emains o analyze
heocen ic models o Ch is ian e hics, as p oposed by o he au ho s (Ho man and
Sandelands 2005; Hiebe 2017, Gnanakan 2015; No hco 1996; Simkins 2014; Richie 2020;
Lowe e al. 2021), which may ul ill he c i e ia o heocen ism inso a as hei “cen ism” is
e e ing o God, wi h all o he hings, “An h opos” and “Oikos”, de i ing hei alue om
God, allowing o he o mula ion o an en i onmen al pla o m o Ch is ian e lec ion and
p ac ice.
In some poin s heocen ism inco po a es, bu is no limi ed o, aspec s and elemen s
o bo h an h opocen ism and ecocen ism. Thus, na u e ecei es indeed an inhe en alue,
bu he gene a ion o his alue is no sel -con ained and sel -gene a ing, bu ecosys em and
human alue is de i ed om God. Al hough heocen ism inco po a es aspec s and elemen s
o he wo models, i does no iden i y wi h o is limi ed by ei he , and c ea es a new pa adigm
o wo ld iew wi h speci ic e hical conside a ions. (Lowe e al, 2021)
Al hough Rols on III is usually seen as belonging o ecocen ic en i onmen al
philosophe s, some o his ex s, such as “Can and Ough We To Follow Na u e?” (1979) and
“Wildli e and Wildlands: A Ch is ian Pe spec i e” (1992), depa om a s ic ly ecocen ic
in e p e a ion o en i onmen al e hics, and begin o in oduce heocen ic concep s and
conside a ions o Ch is ian e hics in he en i onmen al discou se. In Rols on’s “Wildli e and
Wildlands: A Ch is ian Pe spec i e” (1992), his e lec ion wi hin o en i onmen alism in
51
ela ionship, man and na u e a e pa o he same hing, God’s c ea ion, and i is God who is
ul ima ely in cha ge o i . This b ings a le el playing ield, and a pla o m o mo e conside a e
e hical e lec ion on non-human pa icipan s o c ea ion.
Wi hin his heocen ic app oach, man’s place o “exclusi e domina o ” is ex ended
o becoming a ellow membe o he bio ic communi y and a pa o God’s c ea ion. Humans,
while e aining hei biblical hie a chical place and esponsibili y o e na u e, a e answe able
and esponsible o God. Th ough his app oach, man’s ac ions owa ds he en i onmen a e
no unchecked, bu egula ed inally by Ch is ian e hics. Being egula ed by he Ch is ian
heocen ic e hics may allow o mo e balanced modes o being o a ise wi hin human-na u e
ela ions wi h less sel ish and consume -o ien ed a i udes.
3.3.3.1 Some p oposed models
Th oughou he yea s a ious heocen ic models ha e been p oposed, some o which
ha e been ecei ed wi h mo e app aisal om he Ch is ian and en i onmen al communi ies,
while o he s less.
Mol mann’s heocen ism, which No hco (1996: 141) e e s o as “ he p ima y
candida e o a heocen ic app oach o en i onmen al heology”, p oposes in “God in
C ea ion” (1985) and “The Spi i o Li e” (1991) ha God is imminen ly p esen in na u e as
Spi i , ye no iden i ied wi h i , wo king h ough ma e and o ganic li e, while simul aneously
c ea ing and sus aining he in e ac ions o li e in o communi ies (No hco , 1996: 141-142).
Howe e , c i ical esponses o Mol mann’s heocen ism highligh he nea ly pan heis ic iew
o God in e e y hing, including na u al disas e s and i uses. Mo eo e , Mol mann’s hough
is seen as being oo elian on he p og essi e mode n philosophical discou se, such as ha
o Bloch and Hegel, whose hough sys ems and mode nis ic pa adigms a e closely associa ed
wi h he ecological c isis o mode n ci iliza ion by hea ily elying on eo ganizing he non-
human wo ld acco ding o his p esump ion o p og ess (No hco , 1996: 142-143).
James Nash’s “Lo ing Na u e” (1991) ep esen s a mo e adi ional app oach o
heocen ic en i onmen al heology and e hics. In his app oach, he in insic alue o na u e
is ound in i s con inuous ela ionship o he C ea o who lo es all c ea ed objec s, and he

52
wo ld is seen as a gi o all c ea u es, human and non-human. In Nash’s iew, impo ance is
a ibu ed o he in e dependence o all li e, as well as on he ca e o li e and ecosys ems
eaching beyond an an h opocen ic u ili a ian conside a ion: a jus ice-based bond o lo e
uni es all c ea ed hings, “ he heocen ic kinship o al c ea ion” (No hco , 1996: 143).
No hco poin s ou ha he s ong poin o Nash’s app oach is ha i is based and oo ed in
Ch is ian doc ines and heology. On he o he hand, Nash ails o sys ema ically app oach
and add ess impo an oo s and causes o en i onmen al des uc ion. (No hco , 1996: 144)
No wi hs anding, No hco a i ms ha Nash’s heocen ic app oach is “one o he clea es
a emp s o ou line a Ch is ian app oach o en i onmen al e hics” (No hco , 1996: 144)
No hco also discusses S ephen Cla k and And ew Linzey as p oponen s o Ch is ian
heocen ic en i onmen al e hics who e lec on impo an en i onmen al ma e s h ough
he Ch is ian lens o sin and a onemen , and Ch is ian edemp ion wiping ou conscience om
“ecological guil ”, allowing o us o p oceed om a clean sla e. This in u n allows o pe cei e
he se iousness o human and non-human ha m, leading o an encou agemen o change,
o gi e and demand less human and na u al weal h. In his sense, Cla k p oposes Ch is ian
edemp ion as spi i ual bu also as pe aining o na u e, which will also be ans o med and
edeemed along wi h humans. (No hco , 1996: 145-146) Linzey’s p oposal’s s eng h lies in
an unde s anding o heocen ic lo e o all c ea ion, pe cei ed by daily communion wi h God,
along wi h a conside a ion o God’s c ea ion, ex ending o he pe cep ion o God’s lo e o
animals and he mo al ecogni ion o hei igh s as a ma k o holiness and g ace. (No hco ,
1996: 146-147) Thus, animal igh s become heocen ic igh s inso a as all c ea u es a ise
om God and a e gi en hei own “objec i e igh o God”. While Linzey’s e lec ions a e
mos ly ocused on animals and hei inhe en heocen ic igh s and alues, i is s ill possible
o pe cei e wide elemen s o he o mula ion o a Ch is ian heocen ic en i onmen al e hic
wi hin his wo k (No hco , 1996: 147).
3.3.3.2 The place o sc ip u e in heocen ic en i onmen al e hics
Nash (2009), one o he p oponen s o a Ch is ian heocen ic en i onmen al e hic
p oposes ha a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic solely based on sc ip u al manda es and
p inciples may no be su icien inso a as he Ch is ian sc ip u es do no ha e su icien
ma e ial o he de elopmen o a comple e eco-e hic, and ha hei iews o na u e a e o
53
neu ali y and indi e ence. Ins ead o ha , he p oposes an “ecological e o ma ion o
Ch is iani y” buil upon he ounda ion o an eco heological in e p e a ion o co e Ch is ian
doc ines and con essions. This should allow o disco e he ecological dimensions o co e
ene s o Ch is ian ai h such as c ea ion, inca na ion, co enan , edemp ion, sac amen al
p esence, sin, among o he s. He a gues ha biblical w i e s did no p o ide ele an
heological conclusions o en i onmen alism, and ha his ask now pe ains o a new
eco heology. Howe e , he belie es ha such an app oach mus be g ounded in he sense o
Ch is ian lo e applied o ecological con ex s (Nash, 2009: 235).
Nash’s posi ion on he in alidi y and non-necessi y o appealing o Ch is ian sc ip u e
when i pe ains o cons uing an en i onmen al e hic has been con es ed, mos no ably by
Ca ol S. Robb (2009), who posi s ha such an app oach is inconsis en especially when dealing
wi h Ch is ians and socie y a la ge, whe e he Biblical sc ip u es ha e expe ienced an
in e wined ela ionship (Robb, 2009: 241). He ocuses on he speci ic cha ac e is ics o
Ch is ian popula ions, especially he ac ha chu ches do use he Bible, and he e o e he
inclusion o he Bible wi hin he o ma ion o a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic holds alue in
he sense ha i can encou age, and be a basis and means o e lec ion wi hin he Ch is ian
communi ies which hold i as a sou ce o au ho i y (Robb, 2009: 224). This e lec ion uns
pa allel o No hco ’s (1996) e lec ion o he necessi y o conside ing speci ic social alues
pe aining o communi ies o ensu e en i onmen al success. Remo ing he bible om
Ch is ian e lec ion on en i onmen al e hical ma e s may no succeed, because he biblical
p inciples a e o high impo ance o Ch is ians. The e o e, an a emp o wo k wi h Ch is ian
popula ions and en i onmen al e hics should go hand in hand wi h he sc ip u es o he
Ch is ian ai h ins ead o ci cum en ing hese. This can be done by de eloping heocen ic
models o en i onmen al e lec ion based on he Ch is ian sc ip u es and exis ing models,
such as we ha e seen abo e, which include biblical heocen ical ene s o e lec on
en i onmen alism. Likewise, Gnanakan (2015: 131) s a es ha he e exis s a ension be ween
ecocen ism and a biblical solu ion o he Ch is ian communi y, he e o e p oposing a
“biblically ancho ed” heocen ic iew (Gnanakan, 2015: 131). Robb also posi s he
impo ance o including he biblical sc ip u es in he conside a ion o en i onmen al e hics
due o e lec ions and inc ease o unde s anding ha eade s and communi ies may gain by
54
engaging wi h he ex and subsequen ly apply i o hei li es and he wo ld hey li e in (Robb,
245: 2009).
Ano he no able example o sc ip u ally-based heocen ism is Lowe e al.’s 2021
pape on heocen ism: “Reconciling Conse a ion and De elopmen in an E a o Global
En i onmen al Change: A Theocen ic App oach”, which a emp s o p esen heocen ism as
“a biblically no ma i e and concep ually e ec i e way” o go beyond he adi ional
an h opocen ic – ecocen ic dicho omy. (Lowe e al., 2021) When e iewing he li e a u e
and p oposing he heocen ic wo ld iew, Lowe e al. (2021) ecu o he Ch is ian sc ip u es
o lay ou he ounda ional p inciples o heocen ism.
Th ough he Ch is ian sc ip u es, hey a emp o show ha a non-an h opocen ic
iew o li e is e lec ed in passages such as Job 38-40, whe e God eminds Job o humans’
humble place be o e he C ea o and ule o all, by pu ing him ace o ace wi h he
magni icence and as a ay o c ea ion. The e ec o his con as would be o decen e
humans om an ex eme p eoccupa ion wi h hei own sel es. (Lowe e al., 2021: 54, ci ing
Bauckham 2010: 45). Ano he expounded ins ance o he biblical heocen ic iew which
beckons humans o conside li e beyond hei own is ound in Psalm 108 whe e he psalmis
exp esses a c ea ional p aise o God by e e ing o species, hei di e si y, and o hen
subsequen ly b ing humans and o he animals oge he in hei dependency on God (Lowe e
al., 2021: 54, ci ing Bauckham 2010, 71).
The Ch is ian iew o humans is an elemen p esen in he heocen ic iew. Lowe e
al. explain ha (ideally) he e should be no con lic be ween God’s will o he well-being o
c ea ion, and he in e es s o people and he es o c ea ion, (Lowe e al. (2021) ci ing Gushee
(2010: 249-250)) explaining ha obedience o God’s commands ad ance human well-being;
hus he e should be no ension be ween a heocen ic and an h opocen ic app oach.
Howe e , Lowe e al. explain one o he ich con ibu ions o he Ch is ian ision o
unde s and en i onmen al des uc ion: human sin and allenness, which lead o a dis o ed
iew o wha human well-being means. (Lowe e al., 2021: 57). Con lic s and agedy,
he e o e, a e unde s ood no o be as God’s o iginal design, bu he “consequences o sin
and b okenness”. (Lowe e al, 2021: 57). He ies i back in o a e lec ion o an h opocen ism
55
and ecological de as a ion by s a ing ha an h opocen ic a i udes a e wha ha e led us o
he An h opocene. Lowe e al. a gue ha i is he same a i ude o ele a ing humans o e God
ound in he o iginal all in he Ga den o Eden which is also ound in he an h opocen ic
a i udes causing he an h opocene. In e es ingly, Callico (1984: 302) oices a simila
sen imen when exp essing ha man’s o iginal sin was no sexual, bu en i onmen al.
Conside ing Adam and E e’s p e ious oles as he ga dene s and keepe s o Eden, he i s sin
b ough abou sel -consciousness and an awa eness o hei nakedness. Callico (1984:302)
a gues ha his sel -awa eness is “logically necessa y o human sel -cen e edness”, o in
o he wo ds, an h opocen ism. Acco ding o his in e p e a ion, an h opocen ism is no a
Biblical di ine san ion, bu ins ead “ he o iginal sou ce o all e il in he wo ld”. (J. Bai d
Callico , 1984: 302). While a eading o an h opocen ism as a di ec consequence and
b anch o he i s sin, i is ha de o ead ha an h opocen ism is “ he o iginal sou ce o all
e il in he wo ld”, especially conside ing o he passages such as he ebellion o he angels in
hea en and Adam and E e’s emp a ion by he se pen in he ga den, leading o disobedience.
No wi hs anding, i can be unde s ood ha an h opocen ism is a di ec esul and
consequence o his o iginal sin and disobedience, and ha , he e o e, an h opocen ism was
no he o iginal “de ac o” modus ope andi, bu one ha a ise a e he all.
While he e is a concep ion ha escha ology is p esen ed as a eason o Ch is ian
non-in ol emen wi h en i onmen al ma e s due o a ocus on he sal a ion o he soul
(Moo, 2016: 483), he heocen ic pe spec i e p esen s an in eg a i e and encompassing iew
o God’s edemp i e p ocess (Moo, 2016; Lowe e al., 2021). Wi h a conside a ion o human
and consequen ecological b okenness esul ing om he all (Moo, 2006: 462), he
heocen ic ision b ings along wi h i a message o hope o humans and he en i onmen ,
wi h i s inhabi an s, es i ying o a es o a ion o he wo ld o “shalom”, whe e humans and
he es o c ea ion a e econciled o once again lou ish in ha mony wi h each o he and God”
(Lowe e al., 2021: 57, ci ing Woodley, 2012).
Cen al o he heocen ic message is he heocen ic, o Ch is ocen ic, econcilia ion
and es o a ion o all o c ea ion h ough he dea h, bu ial and esu ec ion o Jesus Ch is .
The Pauline escha ological accoun in Romans 8 shows ha he sal i ic des iny o mankind is
in e wined wi h ha o c ea ion. In he le e o he Romans, i is expounded ha all o
56
c ea ion g oans wi h humans, and ha c ea ion will be libe a ed along wi h humans om sin
and dea h in he comp ehensi e, econcilia o y and es o a i e sal a ion “cen e ed in he
di ine pe son and wo k” o Jesus Ch is , who “holds i all oge he ” (Colossians 1:15-2; Lowe
e al., 2021: 54).
So jus as na u e su e ed he consequences o human sin in he beginning, so will i eap he
ui s o human sal a ion in he end (Moo, 2006: 462), wi h c ea ion becoming a co-
pa icipan o sal a ion wi h man. I is a i med in he Pauline Ch is ology ha “na u e (…) has
a u u e wi hin he plan o God. I is des ined no simply o des uc ion bu o
ans o ma ion” (Moo, 2006: 462).
Lowe a gues ha he heocen ic ision o he c oss’ escha ological econcilia ion is
his es o a ion o shalom (ha mony / igh ela ionships and mu ual lou ishing) o all
c ea ion, as i was in he beginning (Genesis 1-2), so will i be a he end (Re ela ion 22) (Lowe
e al., 2021: 54, quo ing Woodley, 2012). This in e p e a ion o a sal i ic des iny being sha ed
by humans and na u e is one ha challenges Ch is ian no ions o he wo ld being objec o
“an imminen ie y end” as a mo i a ion o en i onmen al dis ega d (Moo, 2006: 453), and
sal a ion being an exclusi ely human expe ience (Moo, 2006), by ex ending he ecipien s o
sal a ion o being he ea h along wi h humans.
The ul ilmen o Ch is ian sal a ion o humans and na u e in he Johannine
apocalyp ical w i ings includes many e e ences o he o iginal c ea ion o Genesis, sugges ing
he e e sal, o e asu e, o he cu se o sin and dea h (Moo, 2006), es o ing humans and
na u e o God’s will o lo ing communion. Viewed in his scope, he heocen ic ision is
g ounded in he lo e o God, who is lo e, “epi omised by God(…) gi ing His Son o he sins o
humani y (Romans 5:8). This sel less gi ing o onesel o he sake o o he s is he co e o
Ch is ian e hical eaching, as is based on he cha ac e o God (1 John 4:7).” (Lowe e al., 2021:
54, ci ing Young, 1994)
The heocen ic iew o sal a ion acco ding o he li e, dea h, bu ial and esu ec ion
o Jesus Ch is is hus de ined by sel less lo e, which di ec s how humans a e o li e, c ea e
and ela e a e e y le el, whe he indi idually, collec i ely, o s uc u ally/sys emically. (Lowe
e al. 2021: 54, ci ing Lowe and Vena, 2019). Humans become ecipien s and gi e s o his
sel -sac i icial lo e: o be e u ned o God, o be gi en o neighbou s, and o be ex ended o
all membe s o c ea ion, who pa ake, along wi h humans, in God’s plan o sal a ion. This
no ion o lo ing o he s is also p esen in he heocen ic unde s anding o he “imago dei”,

57
which a i ms ha God is mani es in a communi y,” he di ine Communi y-o -Lo e: Fa he ,
Son and Holy Spi i , (who) a e one in lo e, in e ela ed as he pe ec communi y.” (Lowe e
al., 2021).
This unde s anding o he na u e o God also allows us o be e unde s and he no ion
o “imago dei”, which has been c i icised as being an h opocen ic (G asse, 2016) and ha m ul
o he en i onmen (Lynn Whi e, 1967). Howe e , acco ding o a heocen ic unde s anding
o God and how humans ela e o God, he “imago dei” e e s o humans being c ea ed in he
image o he Communi y-o -Lo e, wi h his image once being obscu ed by sin and i s
consequences, bu now es o ed by Ch is ’s sal i ic wo k (Moo, 2006: 481). This leads o an
unde s anding ha humans a e by na u e beings-in- ela ion (Moo, 2006: 481), “c ea ed by
Communi y and o communi y”, wi h such ela ionships now being es o ed and econciled
by he c oss o Ch is (Moo, 2006: 481). Lowe e al. (2021) a gue ha “ ull human lou ishing
akes place when people ela e lo ingly o he es o he communi y o c ea ion, o which we
a e a dis inc i e membe , wi h pa icula esponsibili ies”. (Lowe e al., 2021: 54) The e o e,
o unde s and he “imago dei” heocen ically is no , as has been a gued, o inc ease in sel -
cen e edness, bu ins ead o inc ease in he lo e o God, and he lo e o human and non-
human communi y by ollowing he example o Jesus Ch is ’s sel -sac i icial o e ing o he
es o a ion o his lo ed wo ld. (John 3:16) Thus, heocen ically, lo e is exp essed always in
ela ion o o he as can be seen in he ollowing maxim:
36 Mas e , which is he g ea commandmen in he law?
37 Jesus said un o him, Thou shal lo e he Lo d hy God wi h all hy hea , and wi h all hy
soul, and wi h all hy mind.
38 This is he i s and g ea commandmen .
39 And he second is like un o i , Thou shal lo e hy neighbou as hysel .
40 On hese wo commandmen s hang all he law and he p ophe s.Ma hew 22:36-40 (KJV)
Moo (2006: 485) examines ha he cen al New Tes amen p ecep o lo e ou
neighbou s, when conside ing he ha sh consequences o he en i onmen al c isis, asks us o
conside ca ing o he en i onmen s in which hey li e. Mo eo e , he ex ends his scope o
conside a ion no only o immedia e neighbou s, bu also o “billions all o e he plane who
migh ace de as a ion i global wa ming becomes as se ious as many p edic ” (Moo, 2006:
58
486). Howe e , Moo (2006) doesn’ s op a only conside ing o neighbou bu in ca ing o
c ea ion “no because o ou own sel -in e es , o e en ou o lo e o o he s, bu because
he c ea ion is God’s” (Moo, 2006: 486), showing he impo ance o ac ion based on and
mo i a ed by God’s cen ali y in he heocen ic pe spec i e.
By unde s anding and applying he biblical heocen ic iew, humans can pu sue igh
ela ionships wi h each o he and he es o c ea ion, in eg a ing an h opocen ic and
eco/biocen ic conce ns wi hou making ei he he ul ima e end. (Lowe e al. 2021: 55) This
is done by ecognising he wo h o human and nonhuman species, bu no ele a ing hem o
he le el o idola y.
The “dominion” manda e, which has been labelled as “an h opocen ic” (G eene,
2016: 3), now akes on a sel -gi ing, agape-in o med applica ion (Moo, 2006: 479). In his
sense, “dominion” is seen as an ac o esponsibili y and managemen on behal o i s owne ,
God. (Moo, 2006). This heocen ic pe spec i e o “agape” sel -gi ing se ice o o he s wi h
God as he ul ima e end o e ides chau inis ic human specieism, b ings deepe agape-
in o med unde s anding o biblical manda es such as “imago dei” and “dominion”, and
challenges en i onmen al app oaches which end owa ds an h opocen ic e ms (Lowe e
al., 2021: 55).
The heocen ic iew, Lowe e al. (2021) pu s o wa d, allows o an unde s anding o
he human and non-human alue de i ed om God, bu also o human’s unique and speci ic
ole in c ea ion, equipped by and h ough he “imago dei”. This has been desc ibed as humans
bea ing he ole o “s ewa ds, ice- egen s, ambassado s, and p ies s” (Lowe e al., 2021: 56).
While Leopold (1949) e e s o humans as “plain membe s and ci izens o he bio ic
communi y”, heocen ism ecognises ha humans a e mo al subjec s oge he wi h he es
o c ea ion, bu also mo al agen s which ha e been gi en esponsibili ies by God. Howe e ,
his esponsibili y is o be exe cised wi h and owa ds lo ing se ice (Lowe e al., 2021: 56), in
a a “ ision o ea h ca e wi h God and his pe ec mo al law a he cen e and human beings
ac ing as his accoun able s ewa ds” (Fani an & O imoogunje, 2016: A22).
This heocen ic ision ecognises ha he in e dependen ela ions o humans’
speci ic esponsibili ies and hei ela ionship o he land do no exis on hei own, “bu low
om and a e cen ed in God.” (Lowe e al., 2021: 56). In Biblical heocen ism, he “imago
dei”-equipped ole o humans owa ds na u e is accoun ed o , while s ill ecognising ha
59
God main ains a di ec ela ionship wi h na u e and he wo ld independen ly o us. (Lowe e
al. 2021: 56). This app oach he e o e allows humans o “ ejoice ha he good o he wo ld
ul ima ely does no es solely on ou shoulde s”, allowing a ai h ul a i ude o pe sis in he
p esen , “wi hou being obsessed wi h immedia e esul s o apped in despe a ion and
despai .” These e o s o seek he lou ishing o people and na u e a e “ul ima ely o e ed as
wo ship o he one holding all hings oge he .” (Lowe e al., 2021: 57) This coun e ac s
an h opocen ic endencies, especially as i acknowledges ha human in e es s a e no wha
de ini i ely de e mine wha is igh and good in a gi en si ua ion, bu God’s will and pu poses,
which encompass he good o all c ea ion. The human’s ole, he e o e, is o align one’s will
wi h God’s lo ing will and pu poses owa ds human and non-human c ea ion. (Lowe e al.
2021: 57)
3.4 T ansla ing heo e ical heocen ic Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics in o p ac ice
By ex ending his place o “exclusi e domina o ” o humans o ellow membe s o
c ea ion, wi h human-na u e ela ionships being media ed by God, and sel -sac i icial lo e
being ex ended o neighbou and c ea ion, he concep ion ha Ch is iani y is inhe en ly
an h opocen ic and en i onmen ally ha m ul alls unde sc u iny, as he heocen ic model
aises new app oaches and models o unde s anding human-na u e ela ionships ha
encou age bene icial in e ac ion be ween humans and na u e, ins ead o aliena ing humans
om na u e, ceasing o be some hing o be exclusi ely conque ed.
Ho man and Sandelands (2005: 153) a gue ha he ex eme an h opocen ic-
ecocen ic pola i y p esen in he discou se be ween Ch is iani y and en i onmen alism can
only be balanced ou by a einse ion o God wi hin he Ch is ian unde s anding o human-
na u e ela ionships. God’s so e eign y and mu uali y owa ds c ea ion ac i a es mankind’s
s ewa dship owa ds na u e, by balancing he Genesis- o mula ion “dominion” wi h he call
o “ eplenishmen ” (Ho man & Sandelands, 2005: 153) ( o ill, o sa is y, accomplish,
comple e) (S ong’s Conco dance: Genesis 1:28). This a i ude o balancing dominion wi h
eplenishmen allows o a necessa y use o na u e o he good o mankind, bu likewise
encou ages a human se ice and espec o na u e’s in eg i y and imp o emen . This wo-
sided mu ually bene icial ela ionship be ween man and na u e has been p e iously
60
men ioned in Rols on’s (1992) wo k. The au ho s p opose, u he mo e, ha heocen ism is
no me ely heo e ical, only conce ning alues and wo ld iews, bu ha i also ansla es in o
p ac ical ac ion. This ansla ion is media ed by e hics and e hical alues such as humili y,
espec , sel lessness, mode a ion, mind ulness, esponsibili y. These alues inhe en in a
Ch is ian heocen ic wo ld iew, which a e adi ionally applied o human ela ionships a e
now ex ended and applied owa ds he ecosys em. (Ho man & Sandelands: 155) In p o iding
some e lec ions on he p ac ical applica ion o hese mo al i ues, he au ho s e lec on
hun ing o pleasu e, in lic ing su e ing o la ge-scale ood p oduc ion, use g ain o a en
li es ock ins ad o eeding he poo , clea -cu ing a o es o p o i , li e ing, ma e ialism,
consume ism, dumping used oil in o he local s o m d ain and i e among o he s. They
e lec on hese ques ions by p oposing ha a heocen ic iew challenges hese beha iou s
by leaning on e hical du ies o be upkep by humans, s a ing ha “Theocen ism challenges
mankind o mo e beyond seeking sa is ac ion om na u e and sea ch o sa is ac ion in
na u e as God designed i . I leads o a iew ha i is mo ally igh o consume in mode a ion
and ecycle o euse esou ces when- e e possible.” (Ho man & Sandelands, 2005: 157).
In his sense, heocen ism encou ages pe sonal and communal e lec ion on human-
na u e ela ionships as hey pe ain o God’s so e eign y and in i es he de elopmen and
s i ing owa ds e hical alues and i ues which ansla e in o physical and en i onmen ally
bene icial ac ions due o he change in spi i ual iew. This is pa allel o and con i ms he ini ial
p oposal, oiced by Lynn Whi e and Hill, which posi s ha en i onmen al ac ion, ei he
posi i e o nega i e, mus be p eceded by a spi i ual e lec ion on mankind and cosmo ision.
The heocen ic pe spec i e does his well by including a high deg ee o e lec ion on human
pu pose, alues and du ies in ela ion o God, neighbou and na u e.
Along wi h hese e hical alues, he Bible includes mo e appeals such as “ o se e,
men o , de elop, nu u e, and acili a e” (G imes & Benne III, 2015: 104). Ano he way o
ansla e hese appeals and he a o emen ioned e hical alues in o p ac ical en i onmen al
ac ion is h ough he no ion o heocen ic leade ship (G imes & Benne III: 2015). In
heocen ical leade ship, which is modelled a e Ch is ’s app oach bea ing “a i m desi e o
b ing God glo y in e e y hing, and o mee he needs o o he s”, and o each i o o he s
(G imes & Benne III: 2015: 109). This heocen ic model o leade ship, which is based on
67
pa o a ques o unde s and God, jus as he sea ch o unde s and a cul u e is an ac o
compassion ha e lec s God’s lo e o he people he has made” (Ha is, 2000).
No hco ’s (1996) e lec ions on he necessi y o speci ic en i onmen al and cul u al
conside a ions, and how he Ch is ian amewo k accoun s o his can be seen in Ha is’
poin s. To ul il he Ch is ian mission o helping o he s, complex en i onmen al and cul u al
ac o s ha e o be aken in o accoun o ensu e ha his help is e ec i e and helps li e lou ish
on all le els. This allows o many p oblems a ising om sel -cen ed wo ld iews and
beha iou s o be o e come wi h an in eg a i e iew o heocen ic compassion and wisdom.
This ex ension o conside a ion ound in a heocen ic app oach o human-na u e
ela ionships, when e lec ed upon ecologically, p ac ically econciles he dicho omy be ween
helping people o helping he ecosys em by s a ing ha “we ha e o ind a way o do bo h”
(Lowe e al., 2021), wi h o he examples o o ganiza ions engaging in his endea ou o
inco po a ing conse a ion ag icul u e wi h social communal wo k being Young E angelicals
o Clima e Ac ion, he Lausanne Mo emen , and he E angelical En i onmen al Ne wo k.
(Lowe e al., 2021: 60) This challenges bo h he an h opocen ic – ecocen ic dicho omy, as
well as Ch is ian a i udes o skep icism owa ds en i onmen al ma e s, allowing o econcile
he unde s anding ha helping humans and helping na u e go hand in hand, ins ead o being
sepa a e endea ou s, and, inally, by p o iding e ec i e pla o ms o en i onmen al
e lec ion and ac ion o ai h g oups.
These pe spec i es and app oaches o p ac ically applying heocen ic Ch is ian e hics
gi e an o e iew o he po en ials his pe spec i e has o ackle p oblems aised by ex eme
an h opocen ism, and he an h opocen ic-ecocen ic dicho omy. The Ch is ian heocen ic
pe spec i e p esen s i sel as a dis inc ly Ch is ian pla o m wi h obus answe s and po en ial
o conse a ion endea ou s, bo h in ecosys em es o a ion, bu also in conjunc ion wi h local
communi ies. This is due o heocen ism’s wide scope ha app oaches many ace s o li e
such as heological e lec ion and discussion wi hin a communi y, e hical conside a ion,
human communi ies, human physical, emo ional and spi i ual needs, land e hics, ne wo ks o
en i onmen al o ganiza ions, app oaches, pe spec i es and on ological amewo ks o he
o ma ion o a heal hy and in eg a i e sys emic unde s anding o human-na u e
ela ionships. Mo eo e , he heocen ic pe spec i e p o ides a meaning-o ien ed
unde s anding o human-en i onmen al ela ionships by e e ing i o God, and a co-
ope a ion wi h he sal a ion o humans and na u e in Jesus Ch is . The edemp i e and

68
escha ological aspec o he Ch is ian ision becomes an in o ming-agen o mo i a ed
conside a ion o and pa icipa ion in he en i onmen . This ul ills he c i e ia o an e ec i e
Ch is ian amewo k o en i onmen al ope a ion, as well as an en i onmen al pla o m o
Ch is ian pa icipa ion.
This sec ion on heocen ism has sough o analyze he heo e ical ounda ions o
heocen ism, he ongoing discussion and di e en p oposals in he li e a u e. Finally, mo e
p ac ical implica ions, examples and a enues ha e been analyzed by conside ing how
heocen ism os e s inc eased sensi i i y and mo i a ion o mo al i ue, and how his mo al
i ue can be ansla ed in o p ac ical ac ion h ough pe sonal e lec ion, o ganiza ional
leade ship and communal en i onmen al educa ion and ac ion. The impo ance o
de eloping en i onmen al skillse s and “know-how” has also been discussed along wi h he
ole o Ch is ian en i onmen al associa ions, such as A Rocha and Plan o Pu pose, being
men ioned as pionee s o his wo k, by econciling a heocen ic Ch is ian pe spec i e wi h
ac i e en i onmen al engagemen , helping bo h human and ecosys em communi ies lou ish.
Conside ing hese ac o s and examples, i can be seen ha he heocen ic pe spec i e is no
only a concep ual model o pe spec i e o hough , bu an in eg a i e meaning-o ien ed
ne wo k o e lec ion, easons o ac ion, o ganiza ion, and communi y bea ing solu ions,
wi h exis ing pilla s o ope a ion wi h a his o y o success in en i onmen al ac ion and social
wo k.
3.5 Conclusion
This sec ion has a emp ed o e iew he ela ionship be ween Ch is iani y and
En i onmen al E hics. Mo eo e , i has a emp ed o analyse how his ela ionship is
a ec ed by he h ee pe spec i es o an h opocen ism, ecocen ism and heocen ism.
An o e iew o di e en app oaches o an h opocen ism, as well as hei consequences
we e conside ed, inally acknowledging ha an h opocen ism is a p oblema ic pe spec i e
o e ec i e en i onmen al ac ion.
Then an o e iew o ecocen ism and di e en ecocen ic models we e conside ed, as well
as hei implica ions o Ch is iani y and en i onmen al e hics. Finally, i was acknowledged
ha he ecocen ic pe spec i e is no consis en wi h a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, and
may also bea philosophical inconsis encies in and o i sel .
69
A hi d pe spec i e was p esen ed: heocen ism. Th ough a e iew o he heocen ic
pe spec i e applied o Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics, his pe spec i e was pu o wa d as
an e ec i e pe spec i e consis en wi h Ch is ian en i onmen al iews, as well as a
success ul pla o m o engagemen wi h en i onmen al ac ion, e lec ed in exis ing
o ganiza ions such as A Rocha o Plan wi h Pu pose.
While some answe s and ini ial e lec ions ha e been p esen ed he e in he e iewed
li e a u e, mo e in-dep h s udies pe aining o he p ac ical ansla ion o heocen ic
Ch is ian e hics o en i onmen al ac ion a e limi ed and he e o e u he esea ch on he
opic is equi ed.
We will now p oceed o he empi ical pa o he hesis, whe e hese ques ions will be
explo ed mo e in-dep h.
70
PART II:
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION
71
In e iews
1. In oducing he empi ical p ocess
The empi ical esea ch and he analysis p ocess was done o e he cou se o h ee
mon hs, and consis ed o se en in e iews. The ansc ip s o he in e iews we e hen
compiled in he o m o a “code epo ”, analyzed acco ding o he s a ed me hodology, and
inally educed o his sec ion. The ull epo can be ound in a sepa a e annex documen , o
he sake o e i iabili y and us wo hiness.
Th ough wel e di e en in e connec ing hemes, each wi h se e al sub- hemes, he
con en o he in e iews was analyzed and p ocessed.
These wel e hemes we e he ollowing:
Ch is ian
Pe spec i es ela ed o he Ch is ian ai h.
In his heme was placed he impo an sub-
heme o “ heocen ism”.
Cla i ica ion
The making clea o co e ene s o each
model.
E hics
The conside a ion o he sphe e o e hics in
he discou se
Pe spec i es and Discou se
Discou se ela ed o a ious pe spec i es
such as academic, cul u e, echnology,
his o ical, e c.
Values
The conside a ion o aluable and impo an
aspec s o li e in human li e and
ela ionships.
Examples
Illus a ions and gi en expe iences which
add ess discussed p inciples.
Beha iou s
Ac ions which ep esen ecological
p inciples.
Roles
The iden i ying unc ions o agen s.
72
Rela ionships
The in e - ela ion o agen s wi h each o he ,
and i s implica ions.
No m Sys ems
Va ious socio-cul u al ac o s and
ins i u ions which a ec en i onmen al
ac ion.
An h opocen ism
The pe spec i e ha humans a e he cen al
aspec o all eali y.
Ecocen ism
The pe spec i e ha na u e is he cen al
aspec o all eali y.
Table 3: The in e iew hemes and b ie desc ip ions
These hemes, al hough analyzed sepa a ely and cons i u ing ca ego ies in and o
hemsel es, we e no ound o be sepa a e, bu ins ead ound as ha ing many o e lapping
conside a ions.
One example was in he o e lapping be ween he heme “Ch is ian” and
“An h opocen ism”, o “Ecocen ism”. When discussing each heme, i was o en conjunc ly
discussed how hese connec ed o ei he Ch is ian pe spec i es o he Ch is ian communi y.
The e o e, he hemes can be seen as o ganizing and ca ego izing p inciples, bu he o e all
na a i e o he da a was seen ans e sally, looking a how each o hese hemes a ec ed
and dialogued wi h he o he s.
Fo example, e hics a ec ed oles, and oles a ec ed alues. An h opocen ism o
ecocen ism also a ec ed pe spec i es, and hese pe spec i es a ec ed oles and beha iou s.
The e o e, al hough hese ca ego ies se e as e ec i e “d awe s o o ganiza ion”, i should
be comp ehended ha he con en o he quali a i e da a was gi en by he in e iewees in a
mo e “in eg al iew”, a e m used by In e iewee V.
The empi ical esea ch was done o answe he ollowing ques ion:
How can a heocen ic in e p e a ion o Ch is ian e hics suppo changes owa ds
en i onmen ally- iendly ways o li e and consump ion, so ha Ch is ian en i onmen alism
can be connec ed wi h en i onmen al p ac ice?
Mo eo e , a seconda y ques ion was conside ed:

73
How do o he models (an h opocen ic and ecocen ic) dialogue wi h Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hics?
In he ollowing sec ion, we will discuss how he indings ga e some insigh s o hese
ques ions, and p o ided a basis ha answe s he hypo hesis ha he heocen ic pe spec i e
is an adequa e pe spec i e o Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics, yielding bene icial
en i onmen al ou comes.
We will also discuss how he in e iewees assessed heocen ic e hics, i s pe spec i es and
consequences, as well as he o he wo pe spec i es (an h opocen ism and ecocen ism),
how hey dialogue wi h Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics, and hei consequences.
2. Resul s and discussion
Gene ally, a heocen ic in e p e a ion o Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics was conside ed
by he pa icipan s as a posi i e pe spec i e o adop in conjunc ion wi h Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hics, leading o mo e en i onmen ally- iendly ways o li e and
consump ion.
2.1 The heocen ic pe spec i e
To de ine heocen ism, In e iewee VII pu s o wa d: “p ac ically, o simply pu ,
p ac icing heocen ism means he chu ch pu s Ch is a he cen e , pu s God a he cen e o
i s ision. I s mission, i s goals, e e y hing, and so i ’s no jus abou wha ’s good o humans
when hey make decisions, i ’s wha is mos in line wi h God’s kingdom”. (In e iewee VII)
This hesis a gues ha 1) Ch is ian en i onmen al iews a e no an h opocen ic, bu
heocen ic, and 2) A heocen ic pe spec i e o Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic will lead o
bene icial ou comes and ac ions owa ds he en i onmen .
Gene ally, he in e iewees’ pe spec i es suppo ed his, and s a ed ha , al hough he e a e
an h opocen ic and ecocen ic in e p e a ions, Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics is inhe en ly
heocen ic, and ha he eading o he Ch is ian sc ip u es and adi ion in i es such a
pe spec i e.
In e iewee I conside ed ha a heocen ic iew would be a mo e adequa e suppo o
Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics, by allowing o o e come he dicho omy o humans s.
74
en i onmen : “Theocen ism: humans and he en i onmen a e in balance o keep some kind
o o de ha is God de ined.”
He conside s “ he b eakdown o he dicho omy be ween he en i onmen and he
human” as he essen ial aspec o heocen ism.”
In e iewee V also conside ed ha heocen ism shows “ ha he e is ano he way and ha
people a e seeking o wo k i ou igh in he e”. (In e iewee V) This “ano he way” can be
seen as he al e na i e o he adi ional an h opocen ic-ecocen ic dicho omy, which was
also p oposed by Ho man & Sandelands (2005).
No only was he heocen ic pe spec i e conside ed an al e na i e o he
an h opocen ic-ecocen ic dicho omy, bu i was also conside ed by some in e iewees o
be he no ma i e pe spec i e which should be applied o a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic.
In e iewee III, o example, conside ed he heocen ic pe spec i e “ he only base o a
Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic”, a guing ha e e y hing Ch is ians see and belie e in e ms o
p inciples “ha e o always be cen e ed on God”.
In e iewee IV also conside ed ha he heocen ic pe spec i e has o be applied in a
Ch is ian con ex : “I don’ hink he e’s any ques ion ha i i ’s in a Ch is ian con ex , (…) i
mus be heocen ic. O he wise (…) i will no be Ch is ian, ul ima ely.” He u he s a es: “I
don’ hink i can be, I hink i mus be, i i ’s no heocen ic, i ’s no Ch is ian. I mean, i you
would a he call i Ch is ocen ic e hics ha would be ine oo.” He conside s ha “p obably
mos Ch is ian e hics a e heocen ic.” (In e iewee IV). This no ion o “Ch is ocen ic” can be
e lec ed in In e iewee V’s conside a ion ha “ he e’s no ac ual li ing ou o a heocen ic
e hic wi hou he Lo d doing wha he did and helping us see examples, igh in he li e o
Jesus” (In e iewee V).
This was sha ed by In e iewee V ha s a ed “ he walk o a Ch is ian can’ be an h opocen ic,
i has o be heocen ic” (In e iewee V). In e iewee VII oiced a simila pe spec i e, s a ing:
“I hink heocen ic e hics has o be o should be (…) he no ma i e e hics o Ch is ians, e en
i ha ’s no he mos commonly p ac iced e hic oday”.
He e we can see i sugges ed by many o he in e iewees ha he heocen ic pe spec i e
can be seen as a no ma i e pe spec i e o apply o Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics.
When conside ing his no ma i e applica ion o heocen ism, In e iewee VII conside s
ha , biblically, he e is an “expec a ion ha Ch is ians will ha e a heocen ic e hic owa d
he en i onmen , bu owa d all aspec s o li e, and I jus don’ hink he e’s any o he way o
75
doing i ”. He hinks ha one o he g ea es challenges o Ch is ian communi ies is o wo k
on eco e ing he heocen ic e hic and p ac icing i (In e iewee VII).
This idea o “ eco e ing” was also discussed by Theok i o (2017), Rols on (1992) and
Ho man & Sandelands (2005) which a gued ha a mo emen owa ds heocen ic
in e p e a ions o Ch is ian e hics, and an ecological eading o heocen ic Ch is ian
p inciples, was no so much a mo emen o wa d, bu a mo emen going back, eclaiming
ea ly Ch is ian pe spec i es o human-na u e ela ionships based on heocen ic models.
In e iewee VII a gued ha “I eally do pe sonally hink heocen ism is he o e a ching
amewo k ha has o de ine how Ch is ians engage in hese issues, and hen all o he issues”.
(In e iewee VII). This pe spec i e o heocen ism being a necessa y and no ma i e
amewo k o Ch is ian e hics and en i onmen al e hics had p e iously been discussed in he
e iew by Rossi (1985: 14; ci ed by Lowe e al., 2021) who conside ed ha “any posi ion sho
o a ull accep ance o heocen ism will no ep esen he comple ely biblical, pa is ic
Ch is ian wo ld iew”, and This pe spec i e shows ha heocen ism may be be e sui able
o suppo ing co e Ch is ian ene s, which, in u n, allow o a mo e in o med Ch is ian
app oach o en i onmen al ma e s.
2.1.1 Theocen ic mo al alue
One o he s eng hs iden i ied in he heocen ic pe spec i e is he a ibu ion and
colloca ion o meaning on humans and na u e. In e iewee III conside s ha he heocen ic
pe spec i e poin s ha God is a c ea o who made e e y hing e y good in Genesis 1. This
goodness o all c ea ion is p oclaimed by God and no by humans (In e iewee III). Mos o
he o he in e iewees also men ioned his poin conce ning he p oclaimed in insic alue o
na u e in he Genesis accoun , making i a p ominen heme o in e es . Fo him, he
heocen ic pe spec i e is “ he bes pe spec i e (…) because i is he one ha de ends he
equilib ium be ween all he pieces, de ends in e dependence, de ends co-ope a ion.”
(In e iewee III) He conside s ha when we emo e God ou o he pic u e, e e y hing
umbles down.
This unde s anding o heocen ic alue can also lead o a mo i a ion o en i onmen al
ca e. In e iewee III a gues ha en i onmen al ca e, iewed heocen ically, ecognizes God
as c ea o and au ho by whom all he wo ld was made, and ha he wo ld was c ea ed no
76
o us bu o him. In e iewee IV also men ioned ha he heocen ic pe spec i e is based
on “e e y hing s ems om God, all li e, all pu pose, all e e y hing would s em om God.” He
a gues ha his iew conside s ha one day e e y hing will be e u ned o God, and we will
be held accoun able. Humans’ place, acco ding o his iew, is o exe cise he bes we can and
know how o, e en hough “i won’ be pe ec , o cou se, bu God knows”. (In e iewee III)
In e iewee V men ioned: “I hink he beau y o a heocen ic e hic is ha i ’s o ien ed a ound
wha God alues, and wha God lo es” and “ hen i inhe en ly means i is lo e o neighbo
and lo e o people, and ha i en i ely includes hem as ha ing special in insic alue.”
Mo eo e , he heocen ic pe cep ion o God gi en- alue allows o “a i m he alue o all
o c ea ion, bu i ’s no wo shipping c ea ion”. (In e iewee V)
She conside s ha he heocen ic pe spec i e p o ides a way o a i m he digni y and
esponsibili y o people o li e his wo ld in a way ha demons a es lo e and ca e o no
jus o he people, bu he en i e c ea ed o de .” She u he conside s ha he e a e
“di e en ways o hinking abou (…) how ha wo ks ou in p ac ice, and ha kind o e hical
p inciples ha we apply o how his ge s wo ked ou ” (In e iewee V). Mo ally, In e iewee
VII conside ed ha he heocen ic e hic calls people “ o do wha ’s igh ega dless o wha i
cos s us because i ’s igh , and heocen ism eally gi es us ha mo al ounda ion o do he
good ha needs o be done in he wo ld, e en i you can’ make a business case o i all he
ime” (In e iewee VII). Encou aging he a oidance o he a i ude o “making a business case
o i all he ime”, he heocen ic iew acco ding o In e iewee VII u ges people “ o gi e up
ou li es like Ch is did, and so we do i o God and we do i o he bene i o he es o he
wo ld ha God lo es and ga e God’s li e o as well” (In e iewee VII). This unde s anding o
God-gi en alue hen leads o an en i onmen al e hic and subsequen en i onmen al
pa icipa ion based on mo al du y, encou aging his sense o esponsibili y and du y beyond
pe sonal in e es s such as economic o social. This heocen ic idea o doing “wha ’s igh
ega dless o wha i cos s us” is ied in o a sel less, sel -sac i icial a i ude o bene i and
se ice o o he s, he e o e p o iding a mo o o ac ion o coun e an h opocen ic and
indi idualis ic endencies. In e iewee V conside ed ha “adop ing a heocen ic wo ld iew
has e e y hing o do, o wi h helping o shape (…) an imp o ed Ch is ian e hic, o a Ch is ian
e hics a ound engagemen wi h he en i onmen .
83
en i onmen al ac ion, and e en ca ee s, being in cons an dialogue wi h and in o med by
edemp ion, sal a ion and heocen ic mo al esponsibili y. The impac o he spi i ual
unde s anding and mo i a ions guiding one’s labou should be conside ed as a ac o
encou aging e ec i e en i onmen al wo k.
2.1.3 Consequences o heocen ism
When inqui ed abou he consequences o heocen ism, in e iewees gene ally
conside ed heocen ism as a posi i e hing, wi h bene icial consequences.
In e iewee IV conside ed ha he consequences o heocen ism “a e, I hink ul ima ely, one
ac s Ch is ianly o heis ically, one ac s as i his wo ld belongs o God, his wo ld is c ea ed
by God and is gi en by God o he whole c ea ion” (In e iewee IV). In e iewee VI conside s
ha he consequences o heocen ism would be he de elopmen o an e hic o ca e, and an
e hic o esponsibili y ha ca es abou o he non-human communi ies (In e iewee VI). She
conside s ha his would ex end in o he economy, wi h he o ma ion o a less egois ical
economy, no a ogan ly an h opocen ic, ha conside s na u e as a sp ing o illimi ed
esou ces, along wi h a di ec ion “ o human well-being, and no p o i , o a sus ained
o ganiza ion o humans wi h humans, and humans wi h na u e, and na u al en i ies. A jus ice
ha seeks, in ac , he ela ions o equilib ium be ween he a ious elemen s o he bio ic
communi y” (…) along wi h “an e hic o ca e, and hen all o his has o be assumed in each
ci izen wi h a li es yle, a way o li e” (In e iewee VI). He e we can begin o see ha he
heocen ic pe spec i e should be coupled and e lec ed on along wi h o he no m-sys ems
such as economy, and in mo e in eg al ways such as li es yle. We will e iew In e iewee’s
con ibu ions as o how no m-sys ems wo k in conjunc ion wi h Ch is ian en i onmen al
e hics in an upcoming sec ion. In e iewee VII conside s a consequence o be ha “we see a
much mo e biblical ela ionship be ween humans and he es o na u e whe e we seek he
good o all o i , no jus ou good; and ha means some imes we gi e up hings ha we migh
desi e in o de o bene i o he s, whe he he o he s a e o he humans o non-humans
species and communi ies” (In e iewee VII).
2.1.4 Limi a ions o he heocen ic pe spec i e

84
On he o he hand, al hough a heocen ic Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic may be a
s ong candida e o a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, some o he in e iewees men ioned
some po en ial challenges which e eal ha he heocen ic pe spec i e migh no eadily be
accep ed by all people e e ywhe e.
In e iewee IV conside s ha “a heocen ic (pe spec i e) only wo ks wi hin ai h con ex in
a public sphe e” (In e iewee IV).
In e iewee VI men ions ha he heocen ic ision is no consensual, “ he
heocen ic ision, as you know, is no emb aced by all”. In e iewee IV also men ioned an
in e p e a ion o heocen ic e hic whe e “an h opocen ism ends o eme ge”, ha
in e p e s “ ha God eally jus c ea ed humans as p ima y conce n, ha God was no
conce ned wi h he es o he wo ld”. “I mean i ’s s ill heocen ic, bu i ’s as i God only
ca es abou humans. So, an au hen ic heocen ic e hic would ha e o emphasize ha God
ac ually c ea es he whole wo ld and ha all c ea ion has alue because o God, and ha
would be a signi ican di e ence in e ms o an h opocen ic heocen ism and uly a
heocen ism” (In e iewee IV).
When conside ing o he e hical pe spec i es iewed in Ch is ian e ms, In e iewee
IV men ioned ha Ch is ians can see he o he models in a heocen ic way: “and as we’ e
alked abou , e en ecocen ic, and simply ecognize hem as alking abou he c ea ion and
we can make hem heocen ic”. Mo eo e , he conside es ha “i ’s no di icul o make a
heocen ic model, any Ch is ian models can be heocen ic” (In e iewee IV)
Howe e , his app oach may be ague and may no ill he necessa y equi emen s o ei he
a comple e Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, o a comple e en i onmen al e hic.
Fu he mo e, In e iewees II, IV and VI challenged he hypo hesis by p o iding a
di e en iew. In e iewee II conside ed ha “as a as i goes”, a heocen ic pe spec i e can
be used as a iew o a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, howe e he s a ed ha “ heism is no
he same as Ch is iani y.” He a gued ha : “no, a heocen ic e hic could no be in and o i sel
he basis o a ully exp essed o dis inc i e Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic: (…) he Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hic based on heocen ic e hics would no be di e en and i wouldn’ be
exp essi ely o dis inc i ely Ch is ian”. In e iewee II u he a gued ha “we would be able
o make, p obably, a e y clea p oclama ion o he in insic, inhe en alue o all c ea ed
85
hings, and based on ha alue, hen be able o make asse ions ha hey should no be
abused o des oyed.” He conside s ha “ heism (…) can ake you o some good places, bu
i doesn’ ake you o he places ha ac ually sol e he p oblems. The a i ma ion ha God
exis s, o e en ha by his exis ence we a i m ha he is a c ea o ” allows us some solu ions
o he ques ion o mo al alue, bu his does no cons i u e a ully dis inc Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hic.
Al hough In e iewee III conside ed ha he heocen ic pe spec i e allowed o
unde s and God’s agency as c ea o , and his p oclama ion o all o na u e’s in insic goodness,
In e iewee II, on he o he hand, conside ed ha only hese p emises a e no enough o
suppo a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic. In e iewee II he e o e conside ed ha Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hics should no be iewed in hese h ee pe spec i es (an h opocen ic,
ecocen ic and heocen ic), bu ins ead iewed as an e hical pe spec i e in and o i sel wi h
i s unique and dis inc con ibu ions ha i b ings o he discussion. Fo him, hese h ee
pe spec i es a e no su icien o ully a i m he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, which is a
b anch o Ch is ian e hics (In e iewee II). This was an in e es ing con ibu ion o he wo k,
because i challenged he no ion ha heocen ism inhe en ly means Ch is ian, dis inguishing
“ heocen ism” om Ch is iani y, s a ing ha gene al “ heism” does no ully a i m he
ene s o he Ch is ian ai h.
On he o he hand, In e iewee IV conside ed he discussion on “cen ism” a ques ion
o “seman ic, and In e iewee VI a gued ha “ hese pe spec i es a e all in e linked”. This also
challenged he hypo hesis, bu in a di e en way han In e iewee II. In e iewee IV
conside ed ha he a ious “p e ixes” a e di e en app oaches o look a he same p oblem,
and ha a hey a e no en i ely dis inc , a pe spec i e which In e iewee VI also sha ed.
Howe e , his was no ully ag eed by he o he pa icipan s, and i will be e iewed in he
nex sec ion how he in e iewees conside ed he speci ica ion and conside a ion o speci ic
c eeds and app oaches impo an .
These limi a ions and a gumen s challenge he hypo hesis o heocen ism as an
adequa e and e ec i e pe spec i e o Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics o mo i a e e ec i e
en i onmen al ac ion.
86
Al hough he heocen ic iew was gene ally seen as a posi i e, and e en necessa y
amewo k o a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, In e iewee II conside ed ha he heocen ic
pe spec i e is no su icien o a ully de eloped Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, and,
mo eo e , ha “Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic” is an en i onmen al e hic o i s own s anding,
and ha i should be cla i ied. This analysis will conside he opic o “cla i ica ion” in
upcoming sec ions. Ano he di icul y ha p esen ed i sel when conside ing a heocen ic
Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic is ha i is no eadily ecei ed by all people. A sugges ion is o
keep he heocen ic pe spec i e as an en i onmen al pe spec i e wi hin Ch is ian ci cles,
which hen dialogues wi h o he g oups and no m-sys ems, allowing o a pe sonal, will ul
decision o adop Ch is ian heocen ic en i onmen al and e hical alues (as p oposed by
In e iewee III).
2.2 Cla i ying he co e ene s o Ch is ian En i onmen al E hics
This sec ion is connec ed wi h In e iewee II’s conside a ion o cla i ying he Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hic ins ead o adding he “ heocen ic” pe spec i e o i .
In e iewee II conside ed ha Ch is ians can make he unde s anding o a Ch is ian
En i onmen al E hic clea e in hough and p ac ice. He conside s ha a i s s ep is o cla i y
one’s own hinking and hen o w i e i down (In e iewee II). When conside ing cla i ica ion,
In e iewee III a gues ha he Ch is ian pe spec i e should no be au ho i a ian and imposed.
He conside s ha when i was done in his way i led o subse ience bu no ans o ma ion.
(In e iewee III)
To cla i y he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, i is impo an o a icula e i , and exp ess
i . In e iewee II ga e some de ailed in o ma ion conce ning his, mo i a ed by he ac ha
his “wo k has eally always been an e o o exp ess Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics and a
he same ime in doing i p ac ically o explain wha I was doing” (In e iewee II). In e iewee
V conce ning cla i ica ion, s a es ha , “in an academic con ex ”, he Ch is ian en i onmen al
e hic should be no malized “as an e hical iewpoin , o as a way” o i s own, “ ha people a e
seeking o wo k i ou igh in he e”.
In e iewee II belie es ha a “ heocen ic pe spec i e” is no enough because “we
wouldn’ be able o go much u he in e ms o being able o s a e clea ly: why do human
87
beings ha e a pa icula esponsibili y o p ese e o e en enhance ha alue? We also, a
ha poin , wouldn’ necessa ily ha e a basis o saying: A e humans (…) no only uniquely
esponsible o p ese e he alue, bu a e hey uniquely esponsible and accoun able o
ha ms ha ha e been done? And i hey a e, should hey epen o hese hings and seek
econcilia ion? A heocen ic e hic o i s own, simply saying ha God exis s, does no
necessa ily imply ha God is o ended by ou beha iou o he ca es abou igh and w ong,
o ai play, o ha he’s going o en e in o judgemen agains wha is e il o w ong. I ha ,
howe e , is he case, hen we’d be lea ing ou a majo elemen ha ’s necessa y in a Ch is ian
en i onmen al E hic, ha is: you need o become awa e o wha you’ e done, ha is w ong,
you need o con ess i , you need o seek econcilia ion and epen ance o i because you
o enses is no simply he ha m you ha e done o na u e, bu he o ense ha you ha e
commi ed agains God, he C ea o .”
Fo in e iewee II hese aspec s o ecogni ion, con ession and epen ance be o e God
a e impo an o cla i y o a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic o be ull and ha e in eg i y.
He a gues ha Ch is ians, “while hey’ e no seeking con o e sy o disco d, (…) should be
clea om he s andpoin o in eg i y and in en ion ha his is wha we mean by a Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hic, and his is why we a e doing wha we a e doing” (In e iewee II) He
belie es ha “Ch is ians should always s a e hei in en ion when, especially when, hey’ e
ac ing speci ically as a Ch is ian o ganiza ion. (In e iewee II) Mo eo e , he conside s “ ha
he single bes hing is o Ch is ian schola s and p ac i ione s o a icula e he Ch is ian
En i onmen al iew in he wides public o um possible, o ag ee wi h, in a consensus
building, all g oups o people o goodwill ha hey can ag ee wi h, and mo e o wa d.”
(In e iewee II)
In eg i y is impo an o Ch is ian en i onmen al o ganiza ions and indi iduals in he
p ocess o cla i ying, because i allows g oups o ope a e hones ly, and deal hones ly wi h
each o he and, In e iewee II a gues, is impo an so ha o he people can clea ly see wha
Ch is ian en i onmen al o ganiza ions a e abou . He conside s ha in eg i y should be he
s andpoin om which people in ol ed Ch is ian en i onmen al ac ion and o ganiza ions
ope a e om, based on consis ency. “I ha ’s done consis en ly, he i s hing ha happens
is ha he Ch is ian posi ion is, I hink, app o ed by God in being exp essed clea ly. And
88
hones ly, ac ually, he e’s no decei . And hen, i ha s ays ou he e and (…) i p o es o be
esilien and able o ake he knocks and s and up, i e en ually begins o win espec ”.
(In e iewee II) In eg i y he e is impo an o Ch is ian en i onmen al o ganiza ions,
because i allows o hem o hones ly exp ess hei belie s and how i ela es o hei
en i onmen al s ance, and hen i can s and he es on he public o um.
In e iewee II gi es an example: “A Rocha (…), hey should also display in eg i y, hey should
no ac in ways con a y o he in en ions hey ha e exp essed, hey ha e o be e y ca e ul
e hically.”
When inqui ed as how o p oceed in his s ep o cla i ica ion and a icula ion,
in e iewee II men ioned a “ h ee-s ep p ocess”: “Ch is ians ake he ini ia i e and a icula e
he posi ion, hey pu i ou in a public o um. We’ e asked o unde go he same pee e iew
in he same igou s and c i icisms as e e ybody else. I hey’ e good enough, and i can
su i e, hen i e en ually can win espec and i will be epea ed and p esen ed: he e is a
alid in ellec ual iewpoin , and i ha alid in ellec ual iewpoin is epea ed enough, some
hough ul people will say: “you know, his is he answe I’ e been looking o , (…) his is wha
I wan ed o ind and ne e ound i in any o he sou ce. I would go wi h ha p og ession”.
In e iewee V a emp s o cla i y he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, albei in a
heocen ic pe spec i e, in a uni e si y con ex whe e she eaches classes. She p esen s
heocen ism “as a hi d way, o a hi d example (…) She pu s i as di e en han
an h opocen ism and ecocen ism, and I alk abou i ha way because I wan people o
ealize ha e en i hey see e idence o wha hey hink is unc ionally an h opocen ic ha
he e (…) a e a lo o people (…) ying o wo k ou heocen ic wo ld iew, especially in how
hey ca e abou he en i onmen and wo ld a ound hem, and (…) ha ma e s”. “So, alking
abou i (…) in an academic con ex , ha ’s impo an .” (In e iewee V)
Mo e han a icula ing and exp essing he Ch is ian en i onmen al iew in an academic
con ex , In e iewee V also conside s “ hinking abou how (…) we can use ou oices and
aming (…) o hink abou sys ems, igh ?”
An impo an aspec conside ed in he p ocess o cla i ica ion was “c edibili y”. In
pa , c edibili y is ied in wi h connec ing he heo e ical aspec o Ch is ian en i onmen al
e hics o a p ac ical aspec . In e iewee II a gues ha Ch is ians a e o wo k ou “ he p ac ical

89
aspec s, (…) demons a ing in eg i y in ha .” (…) “you’ e go o wo k a i all he ime”
(In e iewee II). C edibili y, he e o e, allows o he Ch is ian en i onmen al posi ion o
s and as a c edible posi ion o i s own in he o um o discussion. This can be done o
example, h ough a “ ack- eco d”. In e iewee II men ioned ha Ch is ians, as hey seek o
cla i y and p ac ice he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic “de elop a ack eco d which is hei
c edibili y.” Mo eo e , he conside s ha Ch is ians in ol ed in en i onmen alism “can ea n
and dese e he us o wo king wi h o he people, and hey can wo k wi h hem e ec i ely,
and hen collabo a i ely” (In e iewee II). C edibili y is u he shown by models. In e iewee
II conside s ha c edibili y is shown by, o example, “ he ECI model (…) i con ibu ed in a
way ha (…) i s o all, demons a es c edibili y, and ha he e a e eal lesh and blood
Ch is ian people who a e ac i ely in ol ed in hem wi h us. Tha makes i hen ha de o
dispa age o ili y he Ch is ian communi y, in gene al, because he e’s one igh nex o you
wo king on he clima e change p oblem, and ha human elemen .” He conside s he ECI
posi i e, because i “enhances Ch is ian c edibili y and au hen ici y in he p oblem”.
(In e iewee II). He conside s ha one o he ways ha c edibili y can be seen by non-
Ch is ians is h ough “skills and capabili ies, and ac ual de e mina ion, and ini ia i e o wo k
wi h us, hey’ e no apa he ic” (In e iewee II). When one “can connec hough and p ac ice,
you build in eg i y in you sel and you build us and c edibili y wi h o he s” (In e iewee II).
This aspec o c edibili y seems o be especially impo an inso a as i s eng hens he links
be ween communi ies by p o iding a p oo o know-how and skills in en i onmen
conse a ion, allowing o p o essional ela ionships o us o be o med.
Wi hin he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, he e a e some poin s which a e non-
nego iable when engaging in dialogue and collabo a ion. In e iewee III conside s ha “no
comp omising alues has o be a decision, we ha e o know e y well wha a e ou alues”,
and hen decide no o nego ia e and comp omise hem (In e iewee III).
The e o e, by cla i ying and a icula ing he Ch is ian en i onmen al posi ion, Ch is ian
en i onmen al o ganiza ions can also be awa e o which alues a e non-nego iable acco ding
o he Ch is ian en i onmen al iew, and go o wa d on ha . This, again, is based on he
p inciple o in eg i y (In e iewee II).
90
Mo eo e , when cla i ying, exp essing, and subsequen ly pu in o p ac ice he
Ch is ian en i onmen al posi ion o o he s, pe sis ence was seen as an impo an ac o .
In e iewee II conside s ha Ch is ians who “ha e lea ned hose (en i onmen al) echniques,
(…) mus pe sis in doing ( hem)” (In e iewee II). Fo he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, being
pe sis en is ied in o being ai h ul, e en i di ec esul s a e no di ec ly and immedia ely
seen. In e iewee V conside ed ha Ch is ians should be ai h ul, and ha “success is no he
me ic. The me ic is ai h ulness”. Fai h in God is an impo an aspec o wha keeps
Ch is ians mo i a ed o be pe sis en in hei engagemen s wi h conse a ion and
en i onmen al ac i i y. This, again, can be e lec ed on in conjunc ion wi h he p e iously
discussed aspec s o oca ion and meaning-o ien ed engagemen wi h en i onmen al wo k.
2.2.1 Publica ion and ecep ion o CEE
Publishing he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic was also conside ed as an impo an s ep
in he p ocess o cla i ica ion. In his pe sonal expe ience, In e iewee II has ound ha one
canno publish Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics and biology “in he same places. So, I’ e o en
published pa allel hings in places ha we e amenable o ecei ing ideas abou e hics, and
also in esponding o c i icisms o Ch is ians in he en i onmen ” (In e iewee II). The e o e,
i is impo an o indi iduals o g oups who o malize and de elop he Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hic o assess whe e i can be published. Howe e , In e iewee II conside ed
i a bene icial hing o Ch is ian o publish he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic. “And hen wo k
wi h o he people o publish i , so i ’s accessible and can be dis ibu ed o o he people”.
(In e iewee II) One o he bene i s o publishing is ha people can unde s and wha
Ch is ians hink abou en i onmen al ma e s: “He e’s wha one Ch is ian says is an
app op ia e unde s anding o a Ch is ian en i onmen al model, and ha ’s been done by a lo
o people o he han me” (In e iewee II). This may help o b idge he i and he pe cei ed
gap be ween he ield o en i onmen al conce n and he Ch is ian iew.
Mo eo e , when a emp ing o pass en i onmen al policy, In e iewee II conside s:
“as a schola , i you we e wo king wi h his p inciple, he hones hing o do in e ms o
in eg i y would hen be o w i e a pape , y o ge i published and say, and i would ha e a
i le, some hing like “Applica ion o he Noachian Co enan in he p ese a ion o endange ed
species.” “And I’m going o pu his ou he e in on o ei he my ellow schola s in he law
91
o hem o judge i by pee e iew. (…) O bo h, I’m going o pu his ou on a public
s a emen ; maybe o s uden s o o he public a la ge and say: He e’s wha I hink”
(In e iewee II).
Al hough publica ion was seen as a bene icial s ep in he cla i ica ion o he Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hic posi ion, some di icul ies we e conside ed. In e iewees II and II a gued
ha ecep ion is no always welcoming. “To Ch is ians, in e ms o implemen ing hese
biblical ideas, you’ll ne e ge explici ecogni ion and a i ma ion o hese (…) hese p inciples
in he wo ld” (In e iewee II). “We end up su e ing a lo he consequences. Wi hou a doub ”
“(…) some social ma ginaliza ion”, In e iewee III adds. E en hough some esis ance in
ecep ion may a ise when a emp ing o publish he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, i is
none heless impo an o do so, and, p o ided ha he con ibu ion ollows he same igou s
as e e ybody else, hen i is a wo hwhile endea ou o pu sue inso a as i can become a
o malized pe spec i e o i s own s anding wi hin he discou se.
Wi h ha said, he cla i ica ion o he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic can be seen as a
posi i e s ep which may encou age academic discou se and dialogue in he en i onmen al
ield.
Essen ially, he cla i ica ion o he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics also lies in ecognizing and
a icula ing he di e ences be ween he Ch is ian en i onmen al iew and o he
en i onmen al iews. In e iewee II conside s ha “you need o unde s and, no
bellige en ly, bu in elligen ly, wha a e he di e ences? Why a e hese di e ences
impo an ?” (In e iewee II). These di e ences become impo an because o he di e ence
o heo y and p axis in each g oup’s speci ic c eed. Fo example, In e iewee IV pu o wa d
ha he e is a “di ision (…) be ween hose who a e heis ic and hose who a e no .”
On he o he hand, In e iewee VI disag ees by saying ha “only a e y analy ical mind
dissec s, classi ies and says “he e is his e hic, he e is ano he , and he e is ano he (…), and
sea ches o (…) di e ences, and does no unde s and how (…) hey ha e con e gen
aspec s.” (In e iewee VI). She also conside s ha he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic has
con e gence poin s wi h o he e hics, and he e o e he e should be a con e gence o he
a ious e hical measu es. She conside s ha hey should “uni e in a common oice ha ale s
92
poli icians, he deciso s, o eally wha is in cause, and wha is in, e ec i ely he su i al o
humani y, I epea no o he plan , o humani y” (In e iewee VI).
Howe e , mos in e iewees conside ed ha he e a e signi ican di e ences
be ween he models, such as In e iewee VII conside ing “How does heocen ism look
di e en ly han an h opocen ism o ecocen ism?”, and wi h in e iewee II a guing ha such
di e ences a e impo an o a icula e and dis inguish.
In e iewee II u he poin s ou ha cla i ying and di e en ia ing he Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hic consis s o ecognizing: “ his is wha is di e en be ween a Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hic, and biocen ism, o ecocen ism. This is wha is di e en be ween a
Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic and an h opocen ism. This is wha is di e en be ween a
Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, and an indigenous people g oups’ iew o en i onmen al
p o ec ion” (In e iewee II). These di e ences a e impo an , and signi ican because hey
allow o ecognize he co e ene s o each pe spec i e, as well as i s speci ic s eng hs and
weaknesses, allowing o mo e e ec i e dialogue, in a way ha an amalgama ion and non-
di e en ia ion o he pe spec i es could no . Fo example, he conside s ha an
an h opocen ic pe spec i e and a Ch is ian en i onmen al pe spec i e “di e ge a he
quickly.” (In e iewee II)
Mo eo e , he conside s ha i one a emp s o amalgama e he Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hic wi h pe spec i es such as an h opocen ic, “ i s , you wouldn’ ha e a
Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, ha is, you wouldn’ be p esen ing any hing dis inc i ely
Ch is ian, you wouldn’ be making a con ibu ion in ha sense” (In e iewee II)
The e o e, he a gues ha Ch is ians “should simply s a e he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic”
(In e iewee II). In e iewee II u he cla i ied wha he “Ch is ian En i onmen al E hic” is:
“The Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic is eally dis inc i e on wha I would call se e al pilla s.
One is beyond he ac ha , as in heocen ic e hics, God is he C ea o .
No only is he he C ea o , bu he c ea ion is good. Tha is, i ’s no dualis ic, he e’s no a
da k side o a ligh side, like in S a Wa s. The e’s one good c ea ion which God has made and
ha gi es i mo al alue. The (…) second pilla is mo al esponse: Human beings made in he
image o God a e uniquely equipped by ha image o ini ia e God’s in en ions owa d his
c ea ion. And ied o ha is hei i s oca ion: he Lo d God pu he man he had c ea ed in o
99
They an a “kinde ga en h ough 12 h g ade p og am o public schools, pa ochial schools
and homeschools which we e mos ly Ch is ians.” (“and he pa ochial schools we e mos ly
Ca holic”). “The hing ha uni ed all o hese was ha he educa ion ha was o e ed was
e y p ac ical and expe ien ial o ien ed”, all he educa ion was done in a ield en i onmen ,
“o en a he ins i u e campus”, and “ he s uden s we e augh (…) how you measu e he
quali y o g oundwa e , (…) how you p o ec i . (…) he igh way o plan a ee. (…) how o
ecognize an in asi e species, (…) how o imp o e he quali y o soil.”, how o make
ege a ion educe soil e osion in i e s, and so on.
He poin s ou : “he e he objec i e ca ing o he ea h was assumed and ca ied ou and he
knowledge and echniques necessa y o do i we e hen augh , so he s uden s could do i .”
Mo eo e , he conside s ha he s uden s, once expe ienced, could a i m he Biblical
p inciple.
In e iewee II conside ed he Au Sable esea ch p og am and a gued ha e lec ing on how
hey did hings would allow o e lec on how o apply hese. (In e iewee II)
O he examples o en i onmen al wo k, o example, was when In e iewee II was asked o
lead ield ips a chu ches, “simply by ha ing a ull day wi h he cong ega ion in na u al a eas,
showing hem how o unde s and and in e p e ” he en i onmen . (In e iewee II)
These en i onmen al endea ou s and examples, based on a heocen ic
unde s anding o Ch is ian e hics, shows how heocen ic e hic mo i a es p ac ical ac ions
and o ganiza ion s uc u es.
This begins o e eal ha he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, and he heocen ic pe spec i e,
a e e ec i e o ms o en i onmen alism, and ha one o he ways ha a heocen ic
in e p e a ion o Ch is ian e hics can suppo changes owa ds en i onmen ally- iendly ways
o li e and consump ion is h ough al eady-exis ing ai h-based NGOs.
Ne e heless, u he s udies and pa icipa ion in he academic discou se wi h hese ai h-
based NGOs may yield u he answe s and pe spec i es as o how Ch is ian alues and he
Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic a la ge is connec ed o en i onmen ally bene icial p ac ice.
Al hough pe sonal ac ions a e impo an , g ea e en i onmen al impac and ou each can be
had when hese o malized en i onmen al o ganiza ions engage, because o hei capaci y o
mobilize, o ganize and ou each la ge , mo e ocused en i onmen al endea ou s.
Fu he examples o en i onmen al wo k we e “ini ia i es”, such as he “Species
Su i al Plans”, p esen ed as being inspi ed by he Noachian Co enan .

100
In e iewee IV sees he di e en ini ia i es as “complemen a y kinds o calls o ac ion”. Fo
him, he conce n he has “Is ac ually ge ing people o do hings o change” (In e iewee IV)
In e iewee VI conside s ha all he mo emen s a e “ex emely impo an ” Ch is ian, and
non-Ch is ian.
O he ini ia i es we e ponde ed in mo e o ganized na u e NGOs, being conside ed impo an
by In e iewee IV because hey “ce ainly p o ide a eady-made place, I hink, o hem
(Ch is ians) o engage”. He conside s ha “ he mo e Ch is ians who would engage in i he
be e . I don’ hink he e’s su icien ” (In e iewee IV). In e iewee VI, likewise, conside s all
o hese mo emen s impo an .
An example gi en was Ea h Fi s . Howe e , his example was no conside ed by In e iewee
II as a posi i e example:
“This is exp essed in an o ganiza ion, say like Ea h Fi s . When Ea h Fi s people d i e
ce amic spikes in o ees in a logging sale ha a e in ended o s op he chainsaw om cu ing
he ees, ha spike can also cause a ecoil o he chainsaw blade, and i can inju e o
decapi a e he logge . O when hey come in he middle o he nigh o a Fo es Se ice Range
s a ion and pou sand down he uel line, so he uck can’ go ou and do any managemen
he nex day. They’ e no being hough less andals, hey’ e ac ing ou a belie sys em ha
says human beings a e no be e o wo se, o di e en han o he species, and hey ha e no
igh o manage hem by any ini ia i e. They should lea e hem alone” (In e iewee II).
In e iewee III also commen ed c i ically on hese adical o ganiza ions ha conside ha ming
humans o p o ec he en i onmen . This was one o he s onges poin s gi en by he
in e iewees agains adical ecocen ic pe spec i es, also being one ha had he leas
cong uence wi h a Ch is ian pe spec i e o humans.
2.4 O he conside a ions which a ec en i onmen al conce n and ac i i y
2.4.1 Pe sonal Expe ience
Ano he ac o ha was conside ed by he in e iews, which is impo an o assess
how en i onmen al e hics and alues ansla e in o p ac ice, is “Pe sonal Expe ience”
In pe sonal expe ience we e classi ied he passages which he in e iewees spoke abou hei
pe sonal expe ience wi h en i onmen alism, and how hei pe sonal alues and belie s
in luenced such. Pe sonal expe ience was conside ed as a ele an heme, because i allows
o see how expe s e lec on and apply hese hemes o hei li es, and, in some cases,
101
ansla e Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics in o p ac ical ac ion, and e en en i onmen al
ca ee s.
In e iewee I o ganized a con e ence on clima e change wi h di e en eligious igu es
analyzing clima e change om hei pa icula pe spec i es. He hinks eligion and educa ion
o ha ma e a e impo an . His ield is in economics, bu he has ac i ely engaged in
eligious hough in academia.
In e iewee II has had some people ell him he has wo ca ee s: one as a conse a ion
biologis and one as an en i onmen al e hicis . He’s wo ked o h ee Ch is ian colleges, and
he’s wo ked o p i a e consul an s and secula o ganiza ions, o s a e agencies and he
o es se ice. Mo e ecen ly, he pa icipa ed in an impo an ole in a ai h-based
en i onmen al educa ion and esea ch o ganiza ion called he Au Sable Ins i u e. He’s led
ield ips in chu ches, an an educa ion p og am om kinde ga en o 12 h g ade and was
in i ed o speak a uni e si ies on oil pad esea ch.
In e iewee III became an en i onmen alism be o e being a Ch is ian. He le
o ganized Ca holicism a a young age, and s a ed enjoying being in na u e, and s a ed
ge ing in ol ed in en i onmen al ac i i ies mo i a ed by an inc ease o en i onmen al ca e.
He became a pa ne o he “League o he P o ec ion o Na u e”. When he en e ed
uni e si y, his Ch is ian li e goes h ough a enewal, and he assumes a commi men wi h
Ch is . He e en ually go in ol ed wi h A Rocha, ge ing mo e in ol ed wi h
en i onmen alism. E en ually ha led o him wo king wi h A Rocha.
In e iewee IV is a p o esso o heology ha has been a Ch is ian his en i e li e. He is
a specialis in he ancien Nea Eas e n wo ld his o y and eligion and a cheology. He spends
a lo o ime s udying he Biblical wo ld, and he en i onmen is a pa o his eadings o he
biblical ex , as well as his conce n in he p esen . He ies o ela e wha he biblical ex has
o do wi h he p esen wo ld, “and en i onmen plays a ole he e”.
In e iewee V is a Ch is ian and she was aised in a Ch is ian household. She s ill
iden i ies as a Ch is ian, and she ies o hink a lo abou how he ai h connec s wi h he
wo k o he oca ion. She has a doc o al le el aining in ecology and en i onmen al s udies,
and so ha is wha she does: she wo ks on clima e change, she wo ks on conse a ion, and
she wo ks on “ ying o help hink abou solu ions o some o hose majo challenges”, and
he mo i a ion o doing ha , a i s co e, comes om he co e ene s o he Ch is ian ai h.
102
She’s w i en and spoken abou how he Ch is ian ai h connec s o he ca ee in
conse a ion. E en ou side o he p o essional ca ee inside academia and esea ch, o in
policy, she’s always suppo ed o ganiza ions ha y o ake a ai h-in o med app oach o
en i onmen al issues and champion how o help Ch is ians connec hei ai h o
en i onmen al s ewa dship and ac ion.
She also has expe ience wi h he E angelical Clima e Ini ia i e, because he You h o Clima e
Ac ion, which she helped ound, was bi hed ou o he E angelical Clima e Ini ia i e.
Mo eo e , in he classes, she b ings up heocen ism as a hi d example, in con as o
an h opocen ism and ecocen ism. She wan s people o ealize ha e en i hey see
e idence o a “ unc ional an h opocen ism”, he e a e ac ually a lo o people ying o wo k
ou a heocen ic wo ld iew, especially in how hey a e abou he en i onmen and he wo ld
a ound hem. Fo he , alking abou ha in an academic con ex is impo an .
In e iewee VI was in i ed o be a pa o “Focuses o Ecological Con e sion”. She says
i is a widesp ead mo emen ha seeks o ale o en i onmen al p oblems, and each mo e
people, based on he Pope’s message. She also pa icipa es in he “Mo emen Ze o”, which
is a mo emen which has no hing o do wi h he Ch is ian app oach. She conside s ha he
union o hese e o s is impo an , especially because Ch is iani y agg ega es “millions and
millions o people. This missiona y pu pose, well d i en and guided, can e ec i ely do a lo
o he ela ionship o humans wi h na u e, ha ’s wha I belie e”. (In e iewee VI)
In e iewee VII is a Ch is ian, and an o dained minis e wi h cle gy capaci y in an
e angelical denomina ion in he Uni ed S a es. He’s been a Ch is ian his whole li e,
“p o essionally and oca ionally”, he also esea ched he ole o eligion and eligious e hics
in en i onmen al issues, like clima e change and biodi e si y loss, w i ing his disse a ion on
his opic. He also s udied human dimensions o en i onmen al change, he s udied a lo abou
ishe ies managemen on Lake Tanganyika and Eas A ica. He also s udied a lo abou he ole
o eligion and eligious communi ies in he Uni ed S a es. He’s also w i en a pape on
heocen ism. He’s now wo king wi h A Rocha, and has been wo king wi h hem since 2003.
He also has a bi d eede in his back ya d, which has an exclusion de ice, so he squi els can’
ea he bi d seeds, bu he bi ds ake he seeds and gi e i o he squi els. This expe ience
has allowed him o see he in elligence o animals and conside how hey beha e in
unexpec ed ways.
103
He’s also wo ked wi h chu ches and o he ins i u ions in conside ing he ins alla ion o ene gy
e icien appliances.
These pe sonal expe iences allow o see how eal people a e in ol ed wi h Ch is iani y
and en i onmen alism. Al hough no all a e Ch is ian, hey a e somehow connec ed o
unde s anding he Ch is ian adi ion and how i connec s o en i onmen al ques ions.
Mo eo e , i shows how pe sonal expe iences, belie s and con ic ions ansla e in o e ec i e
en i onmen al ac ion, and e en in o en i onmen al ca ee s. In e iewee V, o example,
s a es ha he Ch is ian ai h is ha which mo i a es he whole wo k, and he e o e i should
be acknowledged ha belie s, and, in his case, he Ch is ian ai h, can be a powe ul d i ing
mo o o en i onmen al ac ion, indi idually, bu also collec i ely, socially, academically and
co po a ely. This aspec o belie as a d i ing o ce o ac ion should no be o e looked as
me ely anecdo al o subjec i e, bu ins ead as some hing ha shapes, in o ms and guides
daily decisions which impac he communi ies and en i onmen a ound hose who hold hem.
These pe sonal expe iences a e examples o how he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics
dialogues and in o ms success ul en i onmen al ac ion, and how i can suppo
en i onmen ally-bene icial a i udes and li es yles. Mo eo e , some in e iewees (III, V, VII)
conside he heocen ic pe spec i e as he no ma i e pe spec i e ha should be applied o
Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics, and he heocen ic pe spec i e is an impo an pa o wha
d i es hei en i onmen al wo k and in o ms hei ca ee s in conse a ion. On he o he hand,
In e iewee II was no so con inced ha he heocen ic pe spec i e would be an adequa e
pe spec i e, bu ins ead he “Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic” should be cla i ied and
p esen ed publicly.
Al hough u he s udy, especially quali a i e and mo e pa icipa i e, should be pu sued, he
pe spec i es o hese in e iewees poin o he success o he heocen ic model, o a he
e y leas , he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, as a s ong, mo i a ing agen o en i onmen al
ac ion.
2.5 How do o he no m-sys ems collabo a e wi h he heocen ic pe spec i e and e ec i e
en i onmen al beha iou s?
Al hough e hics we e conside ed in how en i onmen al ac ion is encou aged and
b ough abou , o he no m sys ems we e also discussed, being seen as in e -linked and in e -
connec ed.
104
No m sys ems a e impo an because hey consis o o he ac o s, besides e hics, ha
in luence en i onmen al beha iou s and ac ion. Mo eo e , hese no m-sys ems we e no
only conside ed in isola ion om e hics, bu also seen as wo king in conjunc ion, in an
in e connec ed way.
The in e iews we e help ul o expand on his opic o no m-sys ems, because many o he
in e iewees had di ec expe ience wi h hese o he sec o s, as b ie ly s a ed in he “pe sonal
expe ience” sub-chap e . Fo example, In e iewee I has expe ience wi h economy, while
o he in e iewees ha e ex ensi e expe ience wi h educa ion.
En i onmen al e hics in and o i sel was no conside ed as su icien o le e age he kind o
beha iou and change needed o en i onmen al ac ion. In e iewee IV a gued:
“en i onmen al e hics isn’ going o go anywhe e i i doesn’ ha e poli ical and economic and
legal ee h, a leas no in e ms o clima e change.”
In e iewee V also conside s ha “Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic has o be wo ked ou in all
hose sphe es (i ) i ’s going o be wo ked ou ” (In e iewee V)
I can be unde s ood he e ha en i onmen al e hics needs o he no m sys ems and social
ac o s o be able o achie e he esul s ha i wan s o. This allows o unde s and
en i onmen al ac ion no in an isola ed manne , bu as ac ion ha is aided, suppo ed and
encou aged by di e en ac o s such as economy, poli ics, law, educa ion.
No m sys ems a e impo an o e ec i e en i onmen al ac ion. In e iewee IV conside ed
ha “in he clima e c isis (one needs) all o hese because indi idual ac ions don’ do
any hing”. (In e iewee IV)
Mo eo e , he conside s he en i onmen al p oblem as a co po a e one ha “a ec s all o
human cul u e and ci iliza ion” (In e iewee IV).
These no m sys ems we e conside ed “impo an le e s o changing ou belie ” (In e iewee
I) In e iewee VII also s a ed: “ hese a e all di e en kind o le e s ha you can pull o ge
beha iou , igh ?” (In e iewee VII). The e o e, hese no m sys ems should be assessed
because hey cons i u e impo an pa s o ansla ing en i onmen al alues and e hics in o
p ac ice, by being connec ed o a wide social amewo k ha can b ing abou changes
needed o add ess a global p oblem.
In he Ch is ian con ex , In e iewee II conside ed ha Ch is ians who a e in ol ed in
o he a eas such as philosophy, lawye s and policy make s ha e a job o “ hink, w i e and do.”
(In e iewee II)

105
Mo eo e , in he Ch is ian con ex , In e iewee II a gued ha he people making policies can
b ing Biblical p inciples, such as he Noachian co enan , and p esen i as he p inciple o ac
on. He says ha “ his has ac ually o en been ex emely e ec i e and success ul”.
(In e iewee II)
He conside s ha ini ia i es o cla i y and p esen he Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics should
be aken by Ch is ians, because he conside s ha he e a en’ many non-Ch is ians who
would be willing o ake he ini ia i e o p esen i e ec i ely. (In e iewee II)
Al hough hese no m sys ems we e conside ed as bene icial when wo king alongside
wi h en i onmen al e hics, and Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics, he e was also a po en ial
pi all which was add essed. In e iewee V a gued ha poli ics can ge dis o ed, “whe e
ideologies, poli ical o economic ideologies, ac ually a e mo e dominan some imes han a e
a commi men and ca e o ce ain heological commi men s.” She conside s ha some imes
Ch is ians a e associa ed o ac ing in a ce ain way wi h a poli ical pa y, o belie e in a kind
o economic sys ems. She u he a gues ha “i ’s maybe mo e abou poli ics o economics
han i is abou heology”.
This conside a ion shows ha , al hough he no m sys ems such as poli ics and economy, a e
help ul o e ec i e en i onmen al ac ion, hey should be ca e ully assessed, especially in
Ch is ian ci cles. A sugges ion would be o Ch is ians o e- hink hei p io i ies in how hey
ac in socie y, and his can s a by Ch is ian communi ies e-cla i y hei heology and wha
hei p io i ies a e.
In e iewee V conside s ha one o he ways would “be cons an ly asking, like wha
could we do o pa icipa e in (…) doing hings be e han hey a e?” The answe may be
inc emen ally, o in o he cases mo e adically. Bu she conside s i impo an ha his
“ma e needs o be e iden in he public sphe e (…) i needs o be e iden o c oss all o hese
sec o s, and has e e y hing o do wi h hem because (…) he en i onmen , o ca e abou
people (…) deeply connec ed o all o hose hings”. He e i can be seen ha en i onmen al
ma e s can be add essed in di e en sec o s, and no isola ed.
She u he s a es: “ hen i ’s also hinking abou how (…) we can use ou oices and aming
o hink abou sys ems, igh ? Like in a b oade poli ical sense o in a b oade educa ional
con ex , o in a b oade economic con ex , like how can we shi he landscape?”
I he en i onmen al g oups speak up hen bigge changes may come o hese o he no m
sys ems, and e en ually impac en i onmen al ac ion.
106
We will now ake a look a he di e en no m-sys ems s udied which we e: economy,
educa ion, law & legisla ion, poli ics, and “o he no m-sys ems”.
2.5.1 Economy
Economy, “a se o alues based on a se o alues” (In e iewee I), as a no m sys em,
is impo an because i assesses ha we place alue acco ding o wha is in he ma ke .
In e iewee I, an expe in economy, s a es ha he alue o hings s a s becoming
measu able in money, “wha people wan o pay o i ”. T ansla ed o ecology, i can be seen
his way: “i he only alue ha we see in hings is economic alue, hen he idea o cu ing
down a 500 yea old ee o sell wood has no mo al componen ” (In e iewee I).
Economy becomes impo an o conside in en i onmen alism because i di ec ly a ec s he
alues ha humans place in he en i onmen . Mo eo e , economy also becomes a b eeding
g ound o con lic o in e es s and alues, whe e mone a y alue is pi ed agains
en i onmen al alue:
“And so, he economy becomes a ba leg ound o ha and ac i is s come o wa d and
people say, no, you shouldn’ be able o do ha , and some imes we pu i in o laws”
(In e iewee I).
In e iewee I u he a gues ha “economy has o add ess clima e change”, bu ha we
shouldn’ do i i he only eason is because we a e making a business case ou o i .
While e hics can be conside ed o no be su icien o d i e e ec i e en i onmen al
ac ion, needing he o he no m sys ems, he con ibu ions also show ha he o he no m-
sys ems, such as economy in his case, need e hics o egula e and ec i y hem as well.
In ha sense, hey should be iewed conjunc u ally. In e iewee I gi es an example: “we ha e
a mo al esponsibili y o p o ec he poo by p o ec ing hem om i s (en i onmen al
consequences) e ec s. And so how do we do ha ? Well, we do ha h ough he economy”.
Economy, when coupled wi h e ec i e e hics, and en i onmen al e hics, becomes a s ong
d i ing poin ha can help communi ies.
Tha could be in pa why In e iewee IV conside s ha “i eally is a lo o economic conce ns
in clima e change mo e han he e a e en i onmen al conce ns ini ially”, and ha “we’ e
ne e going o, I don’ hink, add ess clima e change, because ha ’s eally he conce n wi h
bu ning ossil uels”(In e iewee IV). The e o e, he also sees ha all hese no m-sys ems a e
107
in e linked, and ha o sol e one aspec , o he aspec s need o be ad essed as well; in his
case economic.
Some o he di icul ies iden i ied in economics was ha p o i is a d i ing o ce in
oday’s wo ld, and “i ’s eally ha d o ge people o ag ee o do some hing because i ’s igh ,
e en i i cos s hem mo e han i bene i s hem” (In e iewee VII). He a gues ha economics
ocuses on “is his gonna bene i you? Is i going o be p o i able o you?”. He says ha
“economic sys ems a en’ always e y holis ic o comp ehensi e”: in some hings being good,
bu in o he s no being so good. This u he adds o he idea ha he economy should be
supplemen ed by e hics and he o he no m sys ems, no iewed in isola ion.
He u he conside s ha a heocen ic e hic calls us “ o do wha ’s igh ega dless o wha i
cos s us because i ’s igh ”. I “gi es us ha mo al ounda ion o do he good ha needs o be
done in he wo ld, e en i you can’ make a business case o i all he ime” (In e iewee VII).
He conside s ha he mos impo an is o do wha ’s igh , “some imes i sa es us money,
bu ( he) igh hing o he imes i cos s us”.
The e o e, e hics should ec i y economic beha iou s and p ac ice, o he wise, i le
un egula ed, i could end owa ds a seek o p o i in expense o e hical conside a ions.
Some ways sugges ed o add ess he economy o add ess en i onmen al issues was by
adop ing di e en pe spec i es such as “a less egois economy, no a ogan ly
an h opocen ic, ha sees na u e as a oun ain o esou ces o explo e illimi edly. (…) an
economy ha di ec s i sel o human well-being, and no o p o i , o a sus ained
o ganiza ion o he ela ions be ween humans wi h humans, and wi h humans wi h na u e
and na u al beings” (In e iewee VI).
She s a es ha o he no m sys ems a e al eady add essing he en i onmen al issues, bu now
“poli ics and economy” a e missing (In e iewee VI).
Fu he solu ions discussed by he in e iewees we e o ind di e en imp o ed models and
pa adigms o economy, (In e iewee V) o a leas e lec on new models and y o b ing
ce ain p inciples in o ou cu en economic models (In e iewee VI, In e iewee VII).
In e iewee VI also a gued ha he e a e “economical models able o be conjuga ed wi h
hese e hics ha we a e speaking abou ”. Al hough she doesn’ know i hey can be pu in o
p ac ice, she conside s deg ow h models an impo an conside a ion which has bene icial
e ec s o he en i onmen . (In e iewee VI)
108
2.5.2 Educa ion
Educa ion was also conside ed an impo an aspec o en i onmen al e lec ion and
subsequen ac ion by in e iewees bo h in a gene al sense, as well as in a speci ic Ch is ian
con ex .
All he in e iewees conside ed ha educa ion, and en i onmen al educa ion, a e impo an .
In e iewee I, o example, a gues ha “ eligion and educa ion (…) a e impo an in ou
socie y (…) eligion and educa ion can impac ou alues” (In e iewee I).
Fo him, he ole o highe educa ion is o be “a sa e space o all iews o come o wa d, and
we wo k hese hings ou ” (In e iewee I).
Fo In e iewee V educa ion’s s eng h lies in “educa ing and alking o people abou wha
ma e s”, and “helping hem connec hei exis ing alues and amewo k o (…) expanding
hei wo ld iew”.
In e iewee VII conside ed ha he s eng h o en i onmen al educa ion is o supplemen
people wi h knowledge hey don’ al eady ha e, and his ills in a knowledge gap “and hen
you hope ha people hen will change hei beha iou based on wha hey know”
(In e iewee VII).
In e iewee IV is “a i m belie e ha educa ion is kind o wha d i es he in ellec ual li e o
communi ies.” He hinks ha “i can wonde , i can in o m hem, i can inspi e hem, i can
mo i a e hem. Again, p o ide hem wi h a be e unde s anding o how hey can ac . So
yeah, I would pu educa ion as an impo an sou ce”.
While he a gues ha ce ain aspec s o socie y a e becoming illibe al and “no longe alue
educa ion”, an issue which he doesn’ know how o con on , he o he wise conside s ha
“educa ion is kind o essen ial”. (In e iewee IV)
In e iewee VI also inds en i onmen al educa ion o be impo an and hinks ha i should
be an “in eg a i e pa o he o ma ion o he being in a na u ally ecocen ic and
communi a y pe spec i e”.
Some en i onmen al educa ion examples gi en we e ha o A Rocha (In e iewee III),
and hose o coun ies such as Ge many, USA, Japan, Finland and o he No dic coun ies
(In e iewee VI). In e iewee VI conside ed hese a emp s as success ul.
Two pe spec i es we e b ough up by In e iewee VI: s uc u al and conjunc u al. She
conside s he applica ion o bo h impo an . One is a mo e “ ule-o ien ed” lea ning
expe ience, while he o he is a mo e imme si e and di ec lea ning expe ience.
115
These consequences o an h opocen ic decision making we e conside ed by in e iewees II
and III o be clima e change, global clima e wa ming, he a o emen ioned a i ude o
conside ing esou ces exclusi ely as commodi ies, such as using ossil uels o enhance and
inc ease he con enience o ce ain en i onmen s o ou sel es, dis up ing en i onmen ally
egula ing p ocesses, empe a u e egula ion, ex eme e en s in wea he , which in u n
“cause changes in all o he majo egions a ound he wo ld”. O he consequences pu
o wa d we e he di icul y o p oduce c ops and li es ock, biodi e si y loss and clima e
e ugees. (In e iewee II and III)
Fu he examples o he consequences o an h opocen ism included he ozone hole, caused
by he elease o CFC o human bene i , plas ics and adioac i e iso opes in he s a a o he
ea h, and “an ex emely la ge die-o o species on ea h” (In e iewee I).
In e iewee IV conside ed ha one o he consequences would be ha human well-being is
in e p e ed only in e ms o economic alues a he han he ecological s a e o ou plane .
Ecological conce ns ake a “back sea o economics” (In e iewee IV). In his sense, Human
commodi y becomes p io i ized o e he expense o wide ecological conside a ions such as
deple ion o opsoils and biodi e si y. In e iewee IV conside ed ha hese conside a ions
would be eplaced by a ocus on human socie ies and human well-being.
In e iewee III a gued ha hese consequences, which a e all p esen oday, a ise om an
an h opocen ic pe spec i e, and will ge wo se unless we change.
This idea o long- e m consequences we e also e lec ed on by In e iewee VI, who
conside ed Syl an’s ( hen Rou ley; 1973) “Is The e a Need Fo a New En i onmen al E hic? ”,
ha a emp ed o cons ue an “ecological las -man scena io”, which poin ed o he necessi y
o educing he illimi ed explo a ion o esou ces i humans a e su i e.
In e iewee V a gued ha i he en i onmen is no alued, “you’ e mo e likely o see
esul ing des uc ion”. She conside s ha he acknowledgemen o alue is impo an in he
con ex o decision making (In e iewee V). In e iewee VII also conside ed ha
an h opocen ism impac s he alue we gi e o ecosys ems.
Conside ing an h opocen ism and how i ela es o he Ch is ian iew, he idea ha
hings would ha e alue inso a as humans ha e p esen o u u e pa icula uses o hem,
o because hey a e p e y, o liked, may no be compa ible. He u he conside ed ha when
hings don’ ha e his conscious pu pose, hen humans ha e li le mo i a ion o conse e i ,

116
leading o des uc ion and deg ada ion. He a gues ha his “may no be in line wi h God’s
desi es o us as a species, and o he wo ld ha (…) God pu us in”.
In his pe spec i e, In e iewee VII e eals an in e p e a ion o Ch is iani y ha sugges s
comple e an h opocen ism may no be in line wi h God’s desi e o humani y.
Ano he Ch is ian conside a ion o an h opocen ism’s consequences is idola y, whe e
humans a e placed a he op, o a he cen e o eali y, and e e y hing e ol es a ound
humans. He conside ed his a biblical p oblem ha begins in he Ga den o Eden, whe e
humans y o supplan God as he ul ima e end o all c ea ion. He conside s ha his is wha
humans ha e always been doing, and ha “i has always go en us in o bad si ua ions, whe e
we pu ou sel es a he cen e ins ead o pu ing God a he cen e and unde s anding
ou sel es, (…) ou ela ionship o he es o he wo ld, (…) o each o he , and o ou sel es
indi idually as unde s anding ou sel es and hei cen e ing on God, he C ea o ” (In e iewee
VII)
Mo eo e , in Ch is iani y, an h opocen ic pe spec i es and a i udes may some imes appea
in disguise, whe e i is used as a “spi i ual excuse” o use hings o ou necessi ies
(In e iewee III).
The con ibu ions e eal ha he Ch is ian iew is no exclusi ely an h opocen ic, bu ha
he e a e in e p e a ions ha conside an h opocen ism as an inadequa e wo ld iew.
Howe e , in a gene al sense, he an h opocen ic iew was no ound by all he
in e iewees o be an exclusi ely nega i e d i ing o ce o en i onmen alism, especially
when conside ing a di e en ia ion be ween weak an h opocen ism and s ong
an h opocen ism (In e iewee IV, V, VI), also iden i ied by No on (1984) and Shklia e ski
(2021) in he li e a u e e iew; some, such as In e iewee IV and In e iewee VI, e en
conside ed ha a weak an h opocen ic pe spec i e can s ill suppo an en i onmen al
pe spec i e.
Weak an h opocen ism, speci ically, was no iewed as a des uc i e o ce, bu
ins ead as po en ially “en i onmen ally sensi i e” (In e iewee IV). Al hough weak
an h opocen ism doesn’ acknowledge he in insic wo h o non-human elemen s o (…)
c ea ion”, i can s ill be a basis o en i onmen al suppo (In e iewee IV, In e iewee VI).
Mo eo e , In e iewee IV also conside ed “ ha mos people a e weak an h opocen ics”.
(In e iewee IV) A weak-an h opocen ic basis o en i onmen al suppo would seek o
p ese e he en i onmen based on he good o u u e gene a ions. (In e iewee IV)
117
Conside ing his, an h opocen ism was no seen as some hing o be a oided, bu i s
ine i abili y ecognized. In e iewee VI s a es ha “i would be a bi a i icial o say he e is
no an h opocen ism, because, whe he we like i o no , we a e he ones alking (…) and
hinking he wo ld, he ones who hink abou na u e a e humans”. (In e iewee VI, ansla ed)
In e iewee VII conside ed ha “an h opocen ism basically akes some u h, and akes i
oo a ”. He says ha an h opocen ism is cohe en in he biblical adi ion inso a as “i iews
humans as ha ing in insic alue and wo h, and i iews humans as ha ing pa icula oles o
play”, bu whe e he conside s i “goes oo a , is whe e i would hen unde mine he alue o
he pu pose ha o he li ing c ea u es ha e in he wo ld, o i i places humans as he ul ima e
end o c ea ion (…) whe e e e y hing exis s o he pu pose o humans, a he han humans
being g an ed pe mission o use he es o c ea ion wi hin ce ain alues and p inciples”
These pe spec i es ag ee wi h Hill’s (2000) and Hi zhusen’2 (2007) iden i ica ion o
an h opocen ism as compa ible wi h en i onmen al conce n.
Wi h his we can see ha an h opocen ism was no conside ed as a gene al des uc i e
o ce, bu ins ead ha some in e p e a ions and abuses o an h opocen ism, gene ally seen
in he s ong an h opocen ism a ian , b ing en i onmen al p oblems.
No on (1984) and Shklia e sky’s (2021) a gumen o s ong an h opocen ism as inadequa e
o en i onmen al conce n, and weak an h opocen ism as po en ially adequa e o
en i onmen al conce n a e suppo ed by hese con ibu ions.
2.6.1.1 An h opocen ism as a Ch is ian En i onmen al E hics pe spec i e
Gene ally, an h opocen ism was seen by he in e iewees as incompa ible wi h a
Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic and he p inciples o he Bible.
When enqui ed abou an h opocen ism as a pe spec i e o Ch is ian En i onmen al E hics,
In e iewee II a gued ha “i doesn’ wo k (…), because i can pe e he pu poses o he
ca e o he ea h in ways ha a e no in ended”. He conside s ha he an h opocen ic e hic
canno be used as a basis o Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics, because i would dis o he
ela ionship be ween humans and God, and humans’ pu pose and in ended mode o
in e ac ion wi h na u e.
He a gues ha a Ch is ian En i onmen al E hic “demands esponsibili y, accoun abili y and
ini ia i e”, and an h opocen ism does no ul ill hese demands.
118
Ou o all he pe spec i es, In e iewee II a gued ha i “has p obably he leas cong uence”,
because Ch is ians canno a i m he an h opocen ic ene s excep “we do ha e a unique
capaci y as human beings o ini ia e solu ions”.
Likewise, In e iewee III conside ed ha he an h opocen ic pe spec i e is “comple ely
con a y o he Ch is ian En i onmen al E hic, p ecisely because i is cen e ed on humans;
because i has ha u ili a ian pe spec i e whe e we use and abuse in unc ion o wha a e
ou needs. The e o e i isn’ a Ch is ian e hic”, and ha “i has no hing o do wi h wha he
Bible” says. ( ansla ed)
This idea was ag eed on by In e iewee IV who s a ed ha “as a gene al s a emen , I would
p obably say no.”, conside ing ha i is human-cen e ed.
In e iewee V added o his idea, a guing ha “a s ic ly speaking an h opocen ic iewpoin
is p e y inconsis en wi h he mission o God, and how He e eals Himsel o us in he Bible”.
Rela ed o hese con ibu ions, In e iewee VI conside s ha Lynn Whi e’s (1967) hesis
s a ing ha an h opocen ic Ch is iani y is esponsible o he de elopmen and ep oduc ion
o he en i onmen al c isis, is un ounded, and is based on a “ o ced eading o Genesis and
Ch is iani y i sel ”.
On he o he hand, his iew was no unanimous, and some in e iewees ound ha
he an h opocen ic pe spec i e has he po en ial o wo k wi h a Ch is ian en i onmen al
e hic. This idea had p e iously been p oposed by Hill (2000) who a gues ha he adi ional
Ch is ian an h opocen ic pe spec i e is su icien and holds a s ong basis o he ul illmen
o a model o en i onmen al ac ion. A weak an h opocen ic en i onmen al e hic, o
example, was ound by In e iewee VI as bea ing some compa ibili y wi h a Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hic.
She men ioned ha such an e hic would p i ilege alues o sus ainabili y. This weak, o
“mode a ed”, an h opocen ism aims o a ha monious ela ionship wi h na u e conside ing
u u e gene a ions, and o he non-economic alues such as aes he ic o spi i ual g a i ica ion.
She conside ed ha he cul i a ion o hese alues (aes he ic, spi i ual g a i ica ion,
sensibili y, con empla ion o na u e) would be posi i e, and compa ible wi h a Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hic.
Likewise, In e iewee VII men ioned ha “i (an h opocen ic pe spec i e) can be a
conside a ion, and a biblical Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic”. Howe e , he conside ed ha i
goes oo a by unde mining he alue and pu pose o o he li ing c ea u es.
119
Al hough In e iewee II a gued ha i isn’ compa ible, he conside s ha he an h opocen ic
pe spec i e has some supe icial simila i ies wi h a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, bu ha
“ he esemblance ends up p e y as because he an h opocen ic e hic basically sees alue
in c ea u es in a u ili a ian way”.
Mo eo e , he in e iewees a gued ha an h opocen ism is ound wi hin Ch is ian
en i onmen s. Al hough In e iewee III sees he an h opocen ic pe spec i e as incompa ible
wi h a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, and ha i isn’ cohe en wi h he Bible, he conside s
ha i has been he ac i e p ac ice in he las wo cen u ies, due o he chu ch adop ing a
mode nis ic cosmo ision, and ha “many people who call hemsel es Ch is ians con inue
a i ming, p ac icing and li ing acco dingly”. (In e iewee III, ansla ed) This was also
p oposed by In e iewee IV who said “i depends wha Ch is ians (we) a e alking abou ”:
mode n Ch is ians in he Wes e n wo ld migh in ac be an h opocen ic jus as mode n non-
Ch is ians a e o en an h opocen ic”, bu he conside s his a mode n issue and conce n.
Theok i o (2017) and Simkins (2014) also a gued ha ex eme an h opocen ic ideas in he
Ch is ian communi ies a e a esul o mode ni y (Simkins, 2014) and he ise o a secula
iewpoin (Theok i o (2017).
In e iewee III u he conside s ha in he Ch is ian con ex many en i onmen al p oposals
a e made acco ding o an h opocen ic e ms and i s po en ial consequences o humans, and
ha his app oach o na u e is u ili a ian. This can be seen in line wi h a “p agma ic
an h opocen ism” which is applied by Ch is ians (In e iewee V), whe e Ch is ians ame
ecological engagemen in e ms o educing ha m o people as being a pe suasi e a gumen
(In e iewee VII).
In e iewee V and VII conside ed ha p agma ic an h opocen ism can be ound in some
models, such as a heocen ic e hic (In e iewee V) and he ECI model (In e iewee VII). I i
is conside ed, as In e iewee VI s a es, ha an h opocen ic canno be a oided, and ha i is
always a pa o human decision making, hen i can be unde s ood ha ce ain elemen s o
an h opocen ic hough will be p esen in models de eloped by humans. Au ho s who we e
conside ed in he li e a u e e iew also conside ed ha an h opocen ism is na u al and
ine i able” (Shklia e ski, 2021: 424). G asse (2016: 3) also conside ed an h opocen ism no
as a nega i e o ce, bu as some hing o be egula ed.
In e iewee V conside ed he dange o being p agma ically an h opocen ic as some hing o
be o e come by a heocen ic pe spec i e.
120
This p agma ic an h opocen ism can be seen as oo ed in an ele a ed iew o lo e o people,
which may ge abused by people who pe cei e ha hey a e a unique species. Howe e ,
in e iewee V conside s ha Ch is ians who engage in hese kinds o a i udes “don’ ully si
wi h wha i would mean o (conside wha ) God wan (s)” (In e iewee V).
Al hough an h opocen ism was conside ed by some in e iewees o be a po en ial
pe spec i e, allowing o en i onmen al conside a ion, i was also no ed ha i yielded
nega i e consequences, especially in i s mo e ex eme o ms. This was p e iously discussed
in he li e a u e e iew, which iden i ied ha al hough he e a e a gumen s o an
an h opocen ic Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic, in gene al, he an h opocen ic pe spec i e
shows e idence o en i onmen al dis ega d and des uc ion. Mo eo e , an h opocen ism
was also conside ed by mos pa icipan s as no compa ible wi h and insu icien o be a basis
o a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic. The e o e, conside ing he ha m ul consequences as well
as he discussed incompa ibili y wi h Ch is iani y, i may no be he bes pe spec i e o apply
in conjunc ion wi h Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics.
2.6.2 Ecocen ism
The ecocen ic pe spec i e was also discussed by he pa icipan s, as well as how i
ela es and dialogues wi h Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics. Al hough i was no gene ally seen
as a ully adequa e model o Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics, i was s ill acknowledged as
ha ing some poin s such as “consciousness- aising and awa eness in e ms o i s echniques
o connec ion wi h na u e” (In e iewee II). In e iewee VI also conside ed ha wha
ecocen ism does is “expand a bi he ho izons o ou mind”, o conside he la ge plane a y
communi y and la ge mo al esponsibili ies owa ds he membe s o hese communi ies
(In e iewee VI). In e iewee IV a gued ha he ecocen ic model “wo ks (…) well o he
public dialogue and con e sa ion”, and e en sees compa ibili y be ween Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hics and ecocen ism. He conside s ha , o Ch is ians, hey can jus ake
ecocen ism “and simply ecognize hem as alking abou he c ea ion, and we can make hem
heocen ic” (In e iewee IV). Howe e , ecocen ism was gene ally conside ed by o he
pa icipan s as an inadequa e pe spec i e o a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic.
This inadequancy was, in pa , based on he ecocen ic pe cep ion o “na u e o e man”,
ex emely exempli ied in “lo s o hose me hods which de end ha human beings ha e o be

121
emo ed om na u e so ha i can lou ish”. In e iewee III conside ed his no only
inconsis en wi h a Ch is ian en i onmen al iew, bu also in and o i sel : “we o ge ha
many ecosys ems ha we ha e oday a e p ecisely (…) modeled by humans h oughou
millenia” (In e iewee III). Mo e a gumen s agains ecocen ism as a pe spec i e o Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hics we e b ough up by he in e iewees such as he consequences o
ex eme ecocen ism which could mani es i sel in a “su i al-o - he- i es scena io”
(In e iewee III, ansla ed), which did no i in line wi h Ch is iani y’s ocus on lo ing people
and aking ca e o neighbou s. This idea was discussed by No hco (1996) who p oposed
ha ecocen ic pe spec i es do no ully a i m he co e ene s o Ch is ian en i onmen al
e hics.
Fu he mo e, some in e iewees conside ed ha ecocen ism had philosophical
inconsis encies.
One o hese philosophical inconsis encies was he iden i ica ion o “an h opocen ism in
ecocen ism”.
In e iewee III a gued ha when e lec ed on and applied, ecocen ism ends up being
an h opocen ic: “ he ques ion he e is, who e alua es, who con ibu es o he good? And
who e alua es ha ends up being humans” (In e iewee III). He conside s ha “ his poin o
iew doesn’ wo k”, and ha “i seems o me like a beau i ul a emp , bu naï e, because we
y o place ou sel es (humans) ou o he cen e , which I hink is co ec , bu he o m o
e alua ing is always made by man” (In e iewee III). This idea o inadequa ely decen e ing
humans was u he expounded on by In e iewee IV who a gued ha “ecocen ism (…) has
a ha d ime decen e ing humans o he ull ex en ha he basic concep demands”, p o iding
examples such as “ he e’s nobody ou he e suppo ing he co id i us’ igh o exis , I hink
e e ybody wan s o s op i . Tha ’s an an h opocen ic pe spec i e o some ex en , we don’
de end he igh s o i uses and bac e ia and he like” (In e iewee IV). Hill (2000) also alks
abou his kind o inconsis ency in ecocen ic pe spec i es which ail o accomplish hei
ene s by ul ima ely bene i ing humans “walking on g ass o ea ing spinach salads”.
This ies in wi h he ine i abili y o an h opocen ism, e iewed in Shklia e sky (2021), and
G ey (2006) who a gues ha an h opocen ism can be seen as “na u al and ine i able”, and
e en bene icial (G ey, 2006: 469). E en when a emp ing o e lec ecocen ically, he e will
be cases whe e people ha e o ake human-cen e ed app oaches, such as in he e adica ion
122
o i uses and bac e ia. In e iewee III a gues ha “ his pe spec i e o emo ing human
beings om na u e does no wo k” (…), “i would only wo k (…) i he human species would
be e adica ed, bu hen we would all in o ano he p oblem which is: a en’ human species
pa o na u al ecosys ems?” (In e iewee III). He u he a gued ha he ex eme ecocen ic
pe spec i es ha e inconsis encies whe e “ hey a e p oposing some hing o hei au o-
ex inc ion, i doesn’ make sense”. He conside s ha he adical ecocen ic pe spec i e “only
wo ks (…) i he human species was e adica ed”, he p oposes a hough exe cise, s a ing ha
adical an i-human ecocen ism p oponen s “a e agains hemsel es” (In e iewee III). He
u he s a es “I’d like o know how many o hem would be willing o commi suicide he nex
day p ecisely o be cohe en wi h hei philosophy. I hink i doesn’ make sense, comple ely”
(In e iewee III). Al hough he isn’ ad oca ing suicide, In e iewee III conside s he e ha
he e is an ine i able human agency ha shouldn’ be bypassed, bu ins ead should be
acknowledged as o a oid such a philosophical inconsis ency. Conce ning he “cen e ” idea,
In e iewee IV men ioned ha “wi h an ecocen ism, he e’s no cen e o pu any hing he e.
You’ e alking abou he whole uni e se, he whole ecological web. Yeah, he e’s no cen e .
I ’s e e y hing, i e e y hing is e e y hing, he e can be no cen e o i ”, conside ing his a
philosophical inconsis ency. He a gues ha wha ecocen ism does is “basically decen e ing
humans, (…) a he han pu ing some hing else a a cen e ”. He iews ecocen ism as a
c i ique o an h opocen ism, bu ha “i doesn’ o e a sa is ying al e na i e”. He hinks he
al e na i e is “decen e ed humans” (In e iewee IV). In e iewee IV was no he only one o
men ion ha ecocen ism is a c i icism, o esponse o an h opocen ism. In e iewee III also
conside ed ha “ecocen ism is mo e an app oach agains an h opocen ism”.
This conside a ion is in line wi h wha was e iewed in he li e a u e conce ning ecocen ism
and how i is a esponse o an h opocen ism and i s consequences (Shklia e sky, 2021: 447)
(No hco , 1996: 106). Howe e , in e iewee IV also conside ed ha no only ecocen ic, bu
bo h “ heocen ic and ecocen ic, I hink, a e eally c i iques o a misguided
an h opocen ism. And so I don’ wan o c ea e some hing ha is simply a c i ique o
some hing else jus o i s own sake” (In e iewee IV). Finally, In e iewee II c i iqued
Leopold’s land e hic, a well-known model o ecocen ism, as philosophically inconsis en
inso a as i “gi es he consciousness, i gi es igne es and scenes ha inc ease ou a ec ion
o an a ac ion o na u e, bu i doesn’ demons ably p o e ha you can ha e an e hic base
simply on he ecosys em a he cen e ” (In e iewee II). “The Ch is ian can’ a i m ha
123
heologically and any good philosophical s uden (…) can’ a i m i ei he . Exis ence is no a
basis o alua ion.” (In e iewee II) He conside ed his model “ undamen ally lawed
in ellec ually in e ms o wha i says, scien i ically, wha i says philosophically” (In e iewee
II).
2.6.2.1 Ecocen ism as a Ch is ian En i onmen al E hics pe spec i e
In e iewee IV and VI, howe e , conside ed he ecocen ic pe spec i e compa ible.
In e iewee IV conside ed i inso a as “ecocen ism doesn’ exclude a heocen ism”.
(In e iewee IV), and ha he ecocen ic iew wo ks well in public dialogue and con e sa ion.
In e iewee VI ound ha he e a e con e gence poin s be ween a Ch is ian en i onmen al
e hic and an ecocen ic e hic, ha ’s why she conside s hem compa ible. One o hese
con e gence poin s a e he “communi a y pe spec i e which is common o Leopold and a
Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic” (In e iewee VI). In e iewee VI u he conside ed ha “on
he on ological plane, he deepes plane o eason o being o e e y hing, (…) ( hey) a e
p o oundly iden ical” (In e iewee VI). This, howe e , wasn’ ag eed on by o he
in e iewees. When conside ing Ecocen ism as a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic pe spec i e,
mos in e iewees conside ed ha i is no adequa e, o no su icien .
In e iewee II a gued “my answe is no, his isn’ a basis o a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hic”.
He conside s ha Ch is ians canno a i m ecocen ic p inciples such as Leopold’s basis o
alue.
In e iewee III when conside ing ex eme examples o ecocen ism answe ed “ ha
pe spec i e also doesn’ ha e any hing o do wi h (being) Ch is ian”. In e iewee VII
conside ed ha “when he C ea o isn’ in he igh ul space a he cen e o e e y hing, hen
e e y (…) ela ionships (…) hey’ e no going o wo k” (In e iewee VII) He conside s ha
ecocen ic app oaches such as Leopold’s land e hic “ om a Ch is ian pe spec i e, i would
jus be incomple e, which is ine. He wasn’ ying o w i e om a Ch is ian pe spec i e. I hink
i misses he ole o God in he pic u e, which is cen al o Ch is ians” (In e iewee VII)
Mo eo e , he conside s ha such a model “will u n some Ch is ians o i ha ’s all ha is
used, i ha is he ounda ion”. (In e iewee VII)
Fu he mo e, he e we e also consequences iden i ied wi h ecocen ism.
These consequences ange om a po en ial “su i al-o - he- i es ” scena io (In e iewee III),
124
o ecological disequilib ium due o he necessi y o human in e en ion in ce ain ecosys ems
(In e iewee III). Mo eo e , a dis ega d o humans was conside ed such as “ca ing o (…)
he agilized (…) he elde , he child en” (In e iewee III). In e iewee VII conside ed ha
“we will ge ou p io i ies w ong.” Al hough he hinks “we could make a log o p og ess
h ough eco-cen ism ha would be good o he wo ld, (…) ul ima ely, we would be doing i
o he sake o he wo ld and no o he sake o God” (…) “jus like in he an h opocen ism,
we would end up wo shipping ou sel es, and ecocen ism we would end up wo shipping
c ea ion, ins ead o wo shipping he C ea o ”. (In e iewee VII) This pe spec i e was
conside ed as “en i onmen o e humans” (In e iewee I), a ising om ecocen ism: “on he
e y ex eme end (…) maybe people hink he wo ld’s be e o wi hou humans because
hey’ e jus like e y des uc i e species” (In e iewee V) This eac ion was conside ed by
In e iewee V o be he solu ion ha some people who a e upse abou en i onmen al
des uc ion may come up wi h: “we should jus (…) emo e people om he land, o would
ge people ou o he equa ion”. She conside s his eac ion ex eme. (In e iewee V)
In e iewee III also gi es examples o his iewpoin : “some hype - adical en i onmen alis s
(…) say ha we ha e o ha e mo e conside a ion o species o go illas (…) ha may be in
ex inc ion mo e han humans ha a e dying in hunge , o a e ensla ed”. (In e iewee III) He
conside s his a “ ui o a pos -mode n pe spec i e, whe e man is no longe he cen e o all
hings, bu in ac man begins being he beginning o all e ils, he cance o bea on he plane .
This pe spec i e was conside ed by In e iewees II, III and V o be p esen in adical ecocen ic
pe spec i es and communi ies. Howe e , such a pe spec i e is no cohe en wi h a
heocen ic Ch is ian en i onmen al pe spec i e which ecognizes he alue and speci ic ole
o each membe , human and non-human. On he o he hand, ecocen ism’s consequences
we e seen no only as nega i e bu also as posi i e. In e iewee VI conside s ha one o he
consequences o ecocen ism is he “inse ion o he human in a wide communi y” whe e
humans bea he mo al esponsibili y o p o ec he o he membe s. (In e iewee VI)
Gene ally, mos in e iewees conside ed ha ecocen ism is incompa ible wi h
Ch is iani y. In e iewee I conside ed “o he h ee (an h opocen ic, ecocen ic, heocen ic)
ecocen ic is he leas likely”. In e iewee II and III also conside ed ha , al hough bea ing alid
and con e gence poin s, i is no an adequa e basis o a Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics.
In e iewee V and VII conside ed ha ecocen ism would no be eadily ecei ed by Ch is ians
131
e hic”, his hesis sugges s ha he heocen ic pe spec i e makes a s ong case o
suppo ing changes owa ds en i onmen ally bene icial ways o li e and consump ion by
being a communi y-d i en, meaning-o ien ed pe spec i e o en i onmen al ac ion, and ha
i al eady connec s Ch is ian en i onmen alism wi h en i onmen al p ac ice h ough he
di e en o ganiza ions, ini ia i es, and g oups discussed. A i s sigh , i seems o be
bene icial ha his pe spec i e is communi a ian and meaning-o ien ed, allowing o deepe
mo i a ion, based on co e alues connec ed o a la ge communi y, han indi idualis ic and
ule-o ien ed en i onmen al pe spec i es. Howe e , his should be conside ed as a s a ing
poin om which o build on and keep in es iga ing i he e is a ela ionship be ween
heocen ic communi a ian and meaning-o ien ed pe spec i es and highe a es o
en i onmen al ac ion han indi idualis ic and ule-o ien ed pe spec i es, such as he
s uc u al en i onmen al educa ion as p esen ed by In e iewee VI.
Schul z e al. (2000:58), in hei s udy abou he ela ionship be ween Judeo-Ch is ian
eligious belie s and a i udes o en i onmen al conce n, s a e “O cou se, i is possible ha
ano he a iable ha we did no include in his s udy would ully mode a e he e ec s, bu
his ques ion emains o u u e esea ch”. The indings in his hesis sugges ha one o he
a iables o de elop and include in u he s udies could be whe he pa icipan s adop he
heocen ic pe spec i e in Ch is ian belie s. Possibly, his may yield di e en esul s han he
an h opocen ic-ecocen ic mode o assessmen applied o Ch is ian communi ies in
en i onmen al s udies un il now.
To conclude, his hesis has a emp ed o p o ide, h ough a s a e-o - he a
li e a u e e iew and expe in e iews, pe spec i es conce ning he ela ionship be ween
en i onmen al e hics and Ch is ian en i onmen al e hics, and how hey ela e o
an h opocen ism, ecocen ism, and heocen ism.
This hesis, in heo e ical and empi ical esea ch, has a gued o he applica ion o a
heocen ic pe spec i e in Ch is ian en i onmen alism as one yielding be e esul s han
he adi ionally applied an h opocen ic – ecocen ic measu emen o Ch is ian a i udes in
ela ion o en i onmen al e hics. Mo eo e , i has challenged he no ion ha Ch is iani y is
inhe en ly an h opocen ic, and he cause o he en i onmen al c isis by p esen ing a non-
an h opocen ic and en i onmen ally conside a e pe spec i e in heocen ic Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hics, suppo ed by success ul en i onmen al o ganiza ions wi h decades o

132
expe ience and e ec i eness in en i onmen al and conse a ion wo k. Mo eo e , i has
aimed o challenge he no ion o ecocen ism as he ”de ac o” pe spec i e o posi i e
en i onmen al conside a ion, such as in he NEP, by p esen ing he heocen ic Ch is ian
en i onmen al pe spec i e as one wi h pe sonal, spi i ual, communal, co po a e and
ins i u ional easons o engage in posi i e en i onmen al ac ion and conse a ion.
By challenging he adi ional dicho omy, and p esen ing he heocen ic pe spec i e
as a ac o o ake in o accoun in u he s udies, di e en esul s may a ise when analysing
Ch is ian communi ies’ a i udes and in e ac ions wi h he en i onmen .
Al hough he con ibu ions sugges success in a heocen ic pe spec i e applied o Ch is ian
en i onmen al e hics, he indings in his hesis a e, none heless, be e seen as:
- a comp ehensi e heological suppo o Ch is ians o unde s and en i onmen al
p oblems and esponsibili y acco ding o hei ai h adi ion, ansla eable o he
p ac ical sphe e by d i e s such as heocen ic leade ship, e hics, en i onmen al
educa ion, oca ion, edemp i e collabo a ion.
- indica o s o po en ial in he heocen ic pe spec i e o posi i e en i onmen al
ac ion, backed by pe sonal, communi a ian and o ganiza ional pe spec i es,
easons, con ic ions and e hical p inciples.
The e o e, mo e wo k, especially pa icipa o y and quan i a i e, should be done o
de e mine whe he he heocen ic pe spec i e yields be e indexes o en i onmen al
pa icipa ion in Ch is ian ai h g oups han h ough an an h opocen ic – ecocen ic mode o
assessmen . Mo eo e , mo e wo k should be done in he in es iga ion o how con ic ions
and belie s can be e ec i e d i e s in an en i onmen al wo ld iew, and consequen
en i onmen al ac ion.
The heocen ic pe spec i e he e, he e o e, is p esen ed as a s a ing poin and an
in i a ion o u he in es iga ion and collabo a ion wi h g oups ope a ing om a
heocen ic Ch is ian en i onmen al pe spec i e, which may u he yield new and
undisco e ed ac o s and obse a ions when conside ing d i e s o posi i e en i onmen al
ac ion in Ch is ian ai h g oups.
133
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND OTHER SOURCES
Allen, G. O. and A. (1967). Na iga ing Complexi y In ou Wo ld: Public Theologies o
E e yday Li e. In Angewand e Chemie In e na ional Edi ion, 6(11), 951–952.
Al im, Ronaldo Gomes; Isau Badi u, Ajibola; Ma ques, J. (2014). Ecologia Humana: Uma
Visão Global.
A buckle, M. B., & Konisky, D. M. (2015). The Role o Religion in En i onmen al A i udes.
Social Science Qua e ly, 96(5), 1244–1263. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/ssqu.12213
A man, A. (2021). Ecological Theo y and I s Applica ion , Ecology Rela ionships and O he
Science , and App oaches o Human Ecology. July, 9–16.
BAIRD CALLICOTT, J. (1984). Non-an h opocen ic Value Theo y and En i onmen al
E hics. Ame ican Philosophical Qua e ly, 21(4), 299–309.
h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/20014060
Ba os, M. V., Sal ado , R., do P ado, G. F., de F ancisco, A. C., & Pieka ski, C. M. (2021).
Ci cula economy as a d i e o sus ainable businesses. Cleane En i onmen al Sys ems,
2(Decembe 2020), 100006. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.cesys.2020.100006
Bassey, S. A., Oga , J. N., Asi a, A. E., & Bassey, E. I. (2021). Land E hic Acco ding o he
Biblical Book o Genesis and Isaiah. 4(1), 16–30.
Benson, J. (2000). En i onmen al E hics: An In oduc ion Wi h Readings.
Blasu, E. Y. (2018). The Bible and Ca ing o he Land : A ican Theocology as Ch is ian
Impulsion o C ea ion Ca e. Oc obe . h ps://doi.o g/10.13140/RG.2.2.12383.10404
Bookless, R. D. (2008). Ch is ian mission and en i onmen al issues: An e angelical
e lec ion. Mission S udies, 25(1), 37–52. h ps://doi.o g/10.1163/157338308X293891
Bo jo , M., & Eba, A. (2019). Explo ing Global En i onmen al E hics. 12(2), 79–90.
B oadhu s , H. (2019). Ca e o C ea ion: Ch is ian Ac i ism and Biblical Jus i ica ion o
En i onmen alism. Ap il.
Callico , J. B. (2021). The Land E hic and he Ea h E hic(s). E hics, Policy and
En i onmen , 24(1), 27–43. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/21550085.2021.1904532
Callico , J. B. (1987). The Concep ual Founda ions o he Land E hic. In Companion o a
Sand Coun y Almanac (pp. 173–181).
Callico , J. B. (2022). Th ee p ojec ideas o ill esea ch gaps in Aldo-Leopold schola ship.
Socio-Ecological P ac ice Resea ch, 1967, 1–6. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s42532-021-
00102-6
134
Ca doso, Te esa ; Ala cão, Isabel ; An unes Celoi ico, J. (2010). Re isão da Li e a u a e
Sis ema ização do Conhecimen o.
Ca michael, C. (2014). Ch is ian Educa ion P og ams & En i onmen al Educa ion Final
Repo and Findings. 1–12.
Clemen s, J. M., McC igh , A. M., & Xiao, C. (2014). G een Ch is ians? An Empi ical
Examina ion o En i onmen al Conce n Wi hin he U.S. Gene al Public. O ganiza ion
and En i onmen , 27(1), 85–102. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1086026613495475
Cobb J ., J. B. (1995). Is i oo la e? A heology o ecology (p. 111).
C ooks, R. H. (2016). An In oduc ion o Ch is ian E hics. In An In oduc ion o Ch is ian
E hics (2-downloads). h ps://doi.o g/10.4324/9781315663869
Danz, C. (2021). Theology o na u e: Re lec ions on he dogma ic doc ine o c ea ion. HTS
Teologiese S udies / Theological S udies, 77(3), 1–7.
h ps://doi.o g/10.4102/h s. 77i3.6720
Dochy, F. (2003). A guide o w i ing schola ly a icles o e iews o he Educa ional
Resea ch Re iew. Educa ional Resea ch Re iew, 4, 1–2.
h p://www.scopus.com/inwa d/ eco d.u l?eid=2-s2.0-
84874007515&pa ne ID= ZO x3y1
Engel, J. Ronald; Gibb Engel, J. (1990). E hics o En i onmen & De elopmen : Global
Challenge, In e na ional Response.
Engelha d , H. T. (2007). Why Ecumenism Fails: Taking Theological Di e ences Se iously.
Ch is ian Bioe hics, 13(1), 25–51. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/13803600701282997
Fani an, A. O., & O imoogunje, O. O. I. (2016). C ea ion and En i onmen al Ca e o Global
Secu i y and Peace : The Theocen ic Op ion. Ame ican Jou nal o Academic Resea ch,
1(1), 12–24.
Fo man, Jane; Damsch ode , L. (n.d.). Quali a i e Con en Analysis. In Empi ical Me hods
o Bioe hics: A P ime .
G. No on, B. (1995). Why I Am No A Nonan h opocen is . En i onmen al E hics, 17(4).
Gelde man, C. J., Schijns, J., Lamb ech s, W., & Vijgen, S. (2021). G een ma ke ing as an
en i onmen al p ac ice: The impac on g een sa is ac ion and g een loyal y in a
business- o-business con ex . Business S a egy and he En i onmen , 30(4), 2061–2076.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/bse.2732
Gi o d, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Pe sonal and social ac o s ha in luence p o-
en i onmen al conce n and beha iou : A e iew. In e na ional Jou nal o Psychology,
49(3), 141–157. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/ijop.12034
Gnanakan, K. (2015). C ea ion, Ch is ians and en i onmen al s ewa dship. F on ei as, 4(3),
122–135. h ps://doi.o g/10.21664/2238-8869.2015 4i3.p122-135
135
G asse, A. (2016). Ch is ian En i onmen alism The Impac o An h opocen ism on Ch is ian
En i onmen alism. Dialogue & Nexus, 3, 1–9.
G eeley, A. (1993). Religion and A i udes owa d he En i onmen . Jou nal o he Scien i ic
S udy o Religion, 32(1), 19–28.
G imes, Ma k A., & Benne III, R. H. (2015). Theocen ic leade ship: A new app oach o
120. –(2), 1032, Qua e ly Re iew o Business Disciplinesp. hono ing leade shi-God
-n#d=gs_md_ci ah ps://schola .google.com/ci a ions?use =9l_oIWQAAAAJ&hl=e
&u=%2Fci a ions%3F iew_op%3D iew_ci a ion%26hl%3Den%26use %3D9l_oIWQd
-AAAAJ%26ci a ion_ o _ iew%3D9l_oIWQAAAAJ%3Au
180-sC%26 zom%3D6o8ySG0x
Hall, P. C. (1986). En i onmen al e hics and he sea ch o an ecological e hic.
h ps://schola .uwindso .ca/e d/1943
Ha din, G. (1968). The T agedy o he Commons. Science, 162.
Ha is, P. (2012). Ecosys em se ices and ai h-based bi d conse a ion. Ecosys em Se ices:
Do We Need Bi ds? BOU, 1–2. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/gloen cha.2009.07.008
Ha is, P. (2000). C ea ion Ca e and Mission.
He e nan, J. D. (1982). The Land E hic by Aldo Leopold. En i onmen al E hics, 4(3), 235–
247. h p://www.pdcne .o g/oom/se ice?u l_ e =Z39.88-
2004& _ al_ m =& .imuse_id=en i oe hics_1982_0004_0003_0235_0247&s c_id=
in o:www.pdcne .o g/collec ion
Hiebe , D. (2011). Clima e Change and Ch is ian An h opocen ism. Qua e na y
In e na ional, 184(1), 202–204. h p://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go /pubmed/21796962
Hill, P. J. (2000). En i onmen al Theology: A Judeo-Ch is ian De ense. 2(2), 158–172.
Hi zhusen, G. E. (2010). Clima e Change Educa ion o Fai h Based G oups. July, 1–10.
Hi zhusen, G. E. (2007). Biblical Wilde ness Theology: Spi i ual Roo s o En i onmen al
Educa ion. Tap oo , Volume 17(1), 9–14.
Hi zhusen, G. E. (2007). Judeo-Ch is ian heology and he en i onmen : mo ing beyond
scep icism o new sou ces o en i onmen al educa ion in he Uni ed S a es.
En i onmen al Educa ion Resea ch, 13(1), 55–74.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/13504620601122699
Hi zhusen, G. E. (2007). Judeo-Ch is ian heology and he en i onmen : mo ing beyond
scep icism o new sou ces o en i onmen al educa ion in he Uni ed S a es.
En i onmen al Educa ion Resea ch, 13(1), 55–74.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/13504620601122699
Ho man, A. J., & Sandelands, L. E. (2004). Ge ing Righ wi h Na u e: An h opocen ism,
Ecocen ism and Theocen ism. 903.
136
Jenkins, W., Be y, E., & K eide , L. B. (2018). Religion and clima e change. Annual Re iew
o En i onmen and Resou ces, 43, 85–108. h ps://doi.o g/10.1146/annu e -en i on-
102017-025855
Joe s ad, M. (2019). The Heb ew Bible and en i onmen al e hics: Humans, nonhumans, and
he li ing landscape. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
José Va andas, M. (2021). E hics and he An h opocene C isis: On he Mo al Conside a ion
o Na u e. Philosophy S udy, 11(8), 622–630. h ps://doi.o g/10.17265/2159-
5313/2021.08.004
Kawall, J. (2017). His o y o En i onmen al E hics. In The Ox o d Handbook o
En i onmen al E hics.
Kidwell, J., Ginn, F., No hco , M., Bombe g, E., & Hague, A. (2018). Ch is ian clima e
ca e: Slow change, modes y and eco‐ heo‐ci izenship. Geo: Geog aphy and
En i onmen , 5(2). h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/geo2.59
Kim, J. (2018). Ch is ian an h opology in an age o science: Be ween an h opocen ism and
non-an h opocen ism. Exposi o y Times, 129(12), 547–553.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0014524617753327
Kopnina, H. (2016). Nobody Likes Dicho omies (Bu Some imes You Need Them).
An h opological Fo um, 26(4), 415–429.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/00664677.2016.1243515
Kopnina, H., Washing on, H., Taylo , B., & J Piccolo, J. (2018). An h opocen ism: Mo e
han Jus a Misunde s ood P oblem. Jou nal o Ag icul u al and En i onmen al E hics,
31(1), 109–127. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10806-018-9711-1
Leopold, A. (2019). The Land E hic Aldo Leopold. En i onmen al E hics Fo Enginee s, 43–
53. h ps://doi.o g/10.1201/9781351071765-4
Ligh , A. (2002). Con empo a y En i onmen al E hics: F om Me ae hics o Public
Philosophy.
Lo elock, J. (2000). The ages o Gaia: A biog aphy o ou li ing ea h. In W. W. No on &
Company Inc.
Lowe, B., Lamb, R., & DeBo s , R. P. (2021). Reconciling Conse a ion and De elopmen in
an E a o Global En i onmen al Change. Ch is ian Relie , De elopmen , and Ad ocacy:
The Jou nal o he Acco d Ne wo k, 2(2), 49–54.
h ps://c dajou nal.o g/index.php/c da/a icle/ iew/463
Ma shall, Ca he ine; Rossman, G. (1989). Designing Quali a i e Resea ch.
Ma as i, A. B. (2019). Quali a i e con en analysis: A no ice’s pe spec i e. Fo um
Quali a i e Sozial o schung, 20(3). h ps://doi.o g/10.17169/ qs-20.3.3387
Mason, J. (1996). Quali a i e Resea ching.

137
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Quali a i e Resea ch Design: An In e ac i e App oach (Issue Janua y,
pp. 214–253).
May ing, P. (2000). Quali a i e Con en Analysis. IEEE In e na ional Symposium on
Indus ial Elec onics, 1.
McDonald, R. E., Masselli, J. J., & Chanda, B. (2021). Nonp o i business model inno a ion
as a esponse o exis en ial en i onmen al h ea s: Pe o ming a s in he Uni ed S a es.
Jou nal o Business Resea ch, 125(Decembe 2019), 750–761.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jbus es.2019.12.022
Mclaughlin, A. (2010). The Hea o Deep Ecology. En i onmen al E hics: The Big
Ques ions, 235–239.
Milne, M. J. (1996). On sus ainabili y; he en i onmen and managemen accoun ing.
Managemen Accoun ing Resea ch, 7(1), 135–161.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1006/ma e.1996.0007
Moo, D. (2006). Na u e in he New C ea ion: New Tes amen Escha ology and he
En i onmen . Jou nal o he E angelical Theological Socie y, 49(3), 449.
Mo emeni, C. (1966). Sc Ie : Nc : E. 151(3709), 1–2.
Muñoz-Ga cía, A. (2014). Religion and en i onmen al conce n in Eu ope. A chi e o he
Psychology o Religion, 36(3), 323–343. h ps://doi.o g/10.1163/15736121-12341289
Naess, A., & Sessions, G. (1984). The Deep Ecology Pla o m.
Nagy Hesse-Bibe , S. (2017). The P ac ice o Quali a i e Resea ch.
Nash, J. A. (2009). The Bible s. Biodi e si y: The Case agains Mo al A gumen om
Sc ip u e. Jou nal o he S udy o Religion, Na u e and Cul u e, 3(2), 213–237.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1558/js nc. 3i2.213
Neaman, A., Díaz-Sie e , P., Bu nham, E., Cas o, M., Zabel, S., Do le ya o a, E. A.,
Na a o-Villa oel, C., & O o, S. (2021). Ca holic eligious iden i y, p osocial and p o-
en i onmen al beha io s, and connec edness o na u e in Chile. Gaia, 30(1), 44–50.
h ps://doi.o g/10.14512/GAIA.30.1.9
Neg o , A., & Malo , A. (2021). Eco- heology and en i onmen al leade ship in o hodox and
e angelical pe spec i es in Russia and Uk aine. Religions, 12(5), 1–21.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/ el12050305
No dlande , A. (2021). G een Pu pose: Teleology, Ecological E hics, and he Reco e y o
Con empla ion. S udies in Ch is ian E hics, 34(1), 36–55.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0953946820910672
No hco , M. (2009). Lo ing Sc ip u e and Na u e. Jou nal o he S udy o Religion, Na u e
and Cul u e, 3(2), 247–253. h ps://doi.o g/10.1558/js nc. 3i2.247
138
No hco , M. S. (1996). The En i onmen & Ch is ian E hics.
Nwokoye, A. U. (2021). an Assessmen o he Theo y o En i onmen al E hics. Aquino
Jou nal o Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 123–134.
Oaks, T. (1999). Q 385. Quali a i e Resea ch.
Palme , C., McShane, K., & Sandle , R. (2014). En i onmen al e hics. Annual Re iew o
En i onmen and Resou ces, 39, 419–442. h ps://doi.o g/10.1146/annu e -en i on-
121112-094434
Rehea ing, A. P., & J , R. W. (2021). The Good News o Deu e onomy o All C ea ion: A
Pen ecos al Rehea ing. 1.
Richie, C. (2020). “An e angelical en i onmen al bioe hic: A p oposal.” E hics and he
En i onmen , 25(2), 29–44. h ps://doi.o g/10.2979/e hicsen i o.25.2.02
Riley, M. T. (2017). The wicked p oblem o clima e change: Ch is iani y and en i onmen al
e hics i y yea s a e “his o ical oo s.” Wo ld iews: En i onmen , Cul u e, Religion,
21(1), 61–86. h ps://doi.o g/10.1163/15685357-02101005
Riley, M. T. (2017). The wicked p oblem o clima e change: Ch is iani y and en i onmen al
e hics i y yea s a e “his o ical oo s.” Wo ld iews: En i onmen , Cul u e, Religion,
21(1), 61–86. h ps://doi.o g/10.1163/15685357-02101005
Robb, C. S. (2009). Biblical Au ho i y o Ad oca e o Biodi e si y: A Response o James A.
Nash. Jou nal o he S udy o Religion, Na u e and Cul u e, 3(2), 238–246.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1558/js nc. 3i2.238
Rols on III, H. (2018). ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS: VALUES IN AND DUTIES TO THE
NATURAL WORLD. Key Thinke s on The En i onmen , 291–298.
h ps://doi.o g/10.4324/9781315543659-52
Rols on III, H. (1992). Wildli e and wildlands: A Ch is ian pe spec i e. A e Na u e’s
Re ol : Eco-Jus ice and Theology, 80(4), 122–143.
Rols on III, H. (2000). The land e hic a he u n o he millennium. Biodi e si y and
Conse a ion, 9(8), 1045–1058. h ps://doi.o g/10.1023/A:1008918517655
Rols on III, H. (1979). Can and Ough We o Follow Na u e? En i onmen al E hics, 1(1), 7–
30. h ps://doi.o g/10.5840/en i oe hics1979114
Rou ley, R. (n.d.). En i onmen al E hics E hics and he En i onmen . 42.
Salmons, J. (2016). Doing Quali a i e Resea ch Online.
Sayem, A. (2021). Building Eco-Theological and Bio-cen ic App oach o En i onmen al
E hics: John B. Cobb’s Pe spec i e. 11(1), 26–48.
139
Sayem, M. A. (2019). Religions and En i onmen al E hics: A Compa a i e S udy o John B.
Cobb, J . and Seyyed Hossein Nas . Aus alian Jou nal o Islamic S udies, 4(3), 34-50.
Schul z, P. W., Zelezny, L., & Dal ymple, N. J. (2000). A mul ina ional pe spec i e on he
ela ion be ween Judeo-Ch is ian eligious belie s and a i udes o en i onmen al
conce n. En i onmen and Beha io , 32(4), 576–591.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/00139160021972676
Shklia e sky, G. (2021). LIVING A NON-ANTHROPOCENTRIC FUTURE. 17(3), 421–461.
h ps://doi.o g/10.13140/RG.2.2.14562.04806
Sil e man, D. (2021). Quali a i e Resea ch.
Simkins, R. A. (2014). The Bible and an h opocen ism: pu ing humans in hei place.
Dialec ical An h opology, 38(4), 397–413. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10624-014-9348-z
Sinha, R. C. (2021). An h opocen ic Teleological En i onmen al E hics. Jou nal o Indian
Council o Philosophical Resea ch, 38(2), 125–136. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s40961-
021-00245-7
Si ico, R. A. (1999). Bewa e o G a ing En i onmen al Ideology on o O hodox. 2021.
h ps://www.ac on.o g/node/2334
Skolimowski, H. (1984). The Dogma o An i-An h opocen ism. En i onmen al E hics, 6(3).
Snodg ass, C. E., & Ga es, L. (1998). Doc inal o hodoxy, eligious o ien a ion, and
an h opocen ism. Cu en Psychology, 17(2–3), 222–236.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s12144-998-1008-5
Swa aj, A. (2019). Explo a o y Resea ch: Pu pose And P ocess. Pa isheelan Jou nal, 15(2),
665–670. h ps://www.epw.in/jou nal/2016/46/.../challenge-doing-
Taylo , B. (2011). Edi o ’s In oduc ion: Towa d a Robus Scien i ic In es iga ion o he
‘Religion’ Va iable in he Ques o Sus ainabili y. Jou nal o he S udy o Religion,
Na u e and Cul u e, 5(3), 253–262. h ps://doi.o g/10.1558/js nc. 5i3.253
Taylo , B., Chap on, G., Kopnina, H., O likowska, E., G ay, J., & Piccolo, J. J. (2020). The
need o ecocen ism in biodi e si y conse a ion. Conse a ion Biology, 34(5), 1089–
1096. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/cobi.13541
Theok i o , E. (2017). G een pa ia ch, g een pa is ics: Reclaiming he deep ecology o
ch is ian adi ion. Religions, 8(7). h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/ el8070116
Theology, P., Mcdu ie, D. C., & Tallman, M. (2021). Pen ecos al App oaches o
Eco heology : Re iewing he Li e a u e Ani a Da is Keywo ds : Ecology – c ea ion –
Pen ecos al – i e old gospel In oduc ion The ela i ely ecen ma u ing o Pen ecos al
heology as an academic discipline has included conside a. 1.
T ansi ions, M. (2011). Clima e Change and. Qua e na y In e na ional, 184(1), 202–204.
h p://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go /pubmed/21796962
140
T uelo e, H. B., & Joi eman, J. (2009). Unde s anding he Rela ionship Be ween Ch is ian
O hodoxy and En i onmen alism: The Media ing Role o Pe cei ed En i onmen al
Consequences. En i onmen and Beha io , 41(6), 806–820.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0013916508328905
T uelo e, H. B., & Joi eman, J. (2009). Unde s anding he Rela ionship Be ween Ch is ian
O hodoxy and En i onmen alism: The Media ing Role o Pe cei ed En i onmen al
Consequences. En i onmen and Beha io , 41(6), 806–820.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0013916508328905
Vacek, E. (2017). Theocen ic Lo e E hics. Religions, 8(10).
h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/ el8100224
Van Dyke, F., & L. Lamb, R. (2020). Conse a ion as Voca ion. Conse a ion Biology.
W. Taylo , P. (1986). Respec o Na u e. P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
Washing on, H., Piccolo, J., Gomez-Bagge hun, E., Kopnina, H., & Albe o, H. (2021). The
T ouble wi h An h opocen ic Hub is, wi h Examples om Conse a ion. Conse a ion,
1(4), 285–299. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/conse a ion1040022
Wenz, P. S. (1989). En i onmen al E hics: Du ies o and Values in he Na u al Wo ld .
Holmes Rols on III . E hics, 100(1), 195–197. h ps://doi.o g/10.1086/293167
Whi e, L. (1967). The His o ical Roo s o Ou Ecologic C isis Published by : Ame ican
Associa ion o he Ad ancemen o Science S able URL :
h p://www.js o .o g/s able/1720120 The His o ical Roo s o Ou Ecologic C isis.
Ame ican Associa ion o he Ad ancemen o Science, 155(3767), 1203–1207.
Winings, K. (2021). In oduc ion. Elias 2002.
Wy os kiewicz, M. (2013). Human Ecology.: An Ou line o he Concep and he Rela ionship
be ween Man and Na u e. h ps://depo .ceon.pl/handle/123456789/6409?show= ull
Zimme man, Michael E.; Callico , J. Bai d; Sessions, Geo ge; Wa en, Ka en J.; Cla k, J.
(1998). En i onmen al Philosophy: F om Animal Righ s o Radical Ecology.
Me hodology Manuals
Ca doso, Te esa ; Ala cão, Isabel ; An unes Celoi ico, J. (2010). Re isão da Li e a u a e
Sis ema ização do Conhecimen o. Po o Edi o a.
Mason, J. (1996). Quali a i e Resea ching. Sage Publica ions.
Nagy Hesse-Bibe , S. (2017). The P ac ice o Quali a i e Resea ch. Sage Publica ions.
Salmons, J. (2016). Doing Quali a i e Resea ch Online. Sage Publica ions.
h ps://doi.o g/h ps://dx.doi.o g/10.4135/9781473921955
Sil e man, D. (2021). Quali a i e Resea ch. Sage Publica ions.