In a recent CT column, David P. Gushee, Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union University, writes, “I am becoming convinced that creation care and what we evangelicals usually call “stewardship” are basically the same thing.” That’s precisely why Acton prefers the term “environmental stewardship” to “creation care.”

But this connection between stewardship and care for the environment means something else too. Gushee concludes that “economic and environmental stewardship go together, hand in glove. Perhaps this rediscovery will motivate us to preserve the health of our planet.”

I’ve made that argument here, “Stewardship and Economics: Two Sides of the Same Coin,” where I contend, “If we hold a biblical view of economics and stewardship, we will not be tempted to divorce the two concepts but instead will see them as united.”

Gushee may find, however, that as his realization of the connection between responsible stewardship and sound economics really sinks in, the positions of the Evangelical Climate Initiative and the Evangelical Environmental Network are in need of some modifications…such that “when economics tells us that there are much more imminent threats and opportunities than global warming, the proper approach to Christian stewardship is to heed these priorities and work to effect changes in the most pressing areas.”

Related: “Study: Organic Farming More Efficient”


  • http://careofcreation.org Ed Brown, Care of Creation Inc.

    Jordan,

    In a blog that more often mocks environmental concerns than not, your comments are a breath of fresh air! Could it be that Acton Institute is finally realizing what many of us have known for years – that economic health cannot and will not survive in a world of environmental disaster.

    The wisest path forward is to understand this truth, and employ all of the tools available (whether markets *or* regulations) toward an economic system that sustains and enriches the environment on which it stands.

    Your contrast between climate change and “much more imminent threats” is valid – but has often been used by others to discount the concerns raised by climate change predictions. That is akin to a doctor dealing with a patient who has both appendicitis (an acute life threatening condition) and diabetes (a chronic, but still life threatening disease). One does not treat the appendicitis and say, No big deal about the diabetes; neither does one say, Ignore the appendicitis – we’ve got to control the diabetes!

    We’re intelligent people. We *can* do both!

    (cross posted at Care of Creation blog (http://careofcreation.org/blog/blogmain.cfm)