When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. You may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you?

It may seem odd that the above statements are found in the Bible. They're taken from Deuteronomy 20 [verse 19, ESV], nestled amidst a passage in which God, using Moses as his mouthpiece, gives instructions to the ancient Israelites regarding warfare. In this instance it would almost seem as if God had the welfare of the trees in mind, as if trees had rights. He seems to be asking what some extreme environmentalists ask: What did a tree ever do to you?

It could be added that Adam and Eve were expelled from blissful Eden after they became corrupt, and it could be argued that undeveloped stretches of wilderness deserve the same sort of protection. One might speculate in Tolkienesque fashion that the trees, perhaps, have spirits of their own.

Until one reads the rest of the passage.

Only the trees that you know are not trees for food you may destroy and cut down, that you may build siegeworks against the city that makes war with you, until it falls. --verse 20

Suddenly it's clear the motive for preserving the trees is to preserve food, not to save the lives of trees. The question, "Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you," is rhetorical, intended to remind Israel's armies that their war is with the enemy, not the land or its produce.

God's concern was not with the trees, but with the consumers of the trees' fruit. He was teaching his people not about "dark green" environmentalism, but about conservation.

What's the difference? The goal of conservation is to preserve natural resources for future use or enjoyment. Extreme environmentalism, on the other hand, is an effort to protect nature from the expanding influence of mankind. The two positions intersect in many of their goals, but they are motivated differently, and operate on different assumptions.

When I use the word "environmentalism" I'm painting with a broad brush and am risking upsetting some Christians who consider themselves environmentalists (such as Don Bosch of the Evangelical Ecologist, who also writes for the Acton Institute's PowerBlog), so let me explain. Strictly speaking, an environmentalist is someone who thinks about the environment and takes personal steps to protect it by, for example, recycling and not throwing Pepsi cans out the car window. A non-environmentalist, by contrast, doesn't ever consider the future impact his or her actions will make. A non-environmentalist cuts down the apple tree without considering where he and his children will get apples tomorrow. In this sense, the verses from Deuteronomy do preach environmentalism, and any wise person will be an environmentalist.

However, some ideologies associated with the environmental movement are much more extreme. "Dark green" environmentalists think that nature needs to be protected from the intrinsically corrupting influence of mankind. They view expanding industrialism as a moral evil that should be stopped. They believe nature is better off without human influence. They tend to believe that most ills in the natural world (for example, animal extinctions) are in some way caused by human influence (for example, the release of greenhouse gases). Included in this group are "preservationists," whose goal is to keep remaining ecosystems beyond the filthy reach of civilization.

The heart of this viewpoint is distinctly evolutionary. It includes three philosophical assumptions: First, that the natural world is good and perfect in and of itself. Second, that plants and animals are of equal value with humans. Third, that humans have evolved overmuch, and become tyrants over the natural kingdoms.

The Bible addresses these things. While the original creation was proclaimed "very good" in the beginning, it became cursed after the Fall, and lost its status of goodness. Today we see violence, cancer, and continual death among both humans and animals, and all creation is submitted to the "bondage to decay" mentioned in Romans chapter 8. The natural world, then, is not perfect in and of itself. In other words, extinctions would still happen (though certainly not as quickly) if there were no humans on the planet.

Plants, animals, and humans are not of equal value. Genesis distinguishes between plant life and animal life--animals are said to possess the "breath of life," while plants do not. There is also a distinction between humans and the rest of the animal creation. Unlike animals, humans possess an eternal soul, they reflect the character or "image" of God, and they hold a special relationship with God for which they will be held accountable. While God holds both men and animals accountable for human death, he allows animals to be freely killed for food (Genesis 9).

Biblical theology rejects the evolution of humans outright. From the beginning, humans were set apart to be the pinnacle of creation and to exercise authority over the earth and everything in it, as evinced in the Dominion Mandate, Genesis 1:28. Yet with authority comes responsibility--and here's where we get to the important part. Not only must humans show a measure of kindness to animals (see Proverbs 12:10), they must also use the resources of the earth and the animal and plant kingdoms wisely. They must preserve species and their environments because of their beauty, their role in the ecosphere, and their potential use in the future. In short, people must be conservationists.

A conservationist is simply someone who wants to use resources judiciously, who wants to preserve a reasonable amount of habitat for unique species, who wants to keep the air and water reasonably clean for the next generation. A conservationist, at the same time, wants to see human progress continue. He values humanity more highly than the rest of nature, but considers both when making decisions. He views civilization as a caretaker of the natural world, not a threat to it.

A conservationist is powerful because he is neither afraid of humanity nor nature. He holds both in balance, and lives responsibly and happily. Meanwhile preservationists oppose human dominion, and exploiters leave nothing for the future.

As for myself, I enjoy a warm fire in the winter, and love to eat fruit in the summer. If it comes to that, I'd rather hang out with a conservationist.

image copyright Tina Rencelj. used by permission.