Environmental ethics is a fraught topic in modern evangelicalism. On the one hand, there are frequent calls to take seriously our responsibility as stewards of God’s creation. On the other hand, there is the real danger of drifting—or even rushing headlong—into concerns that draw us away from the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations through the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Add to this the complexities of modern polarized political discourse surrounding climate change, with its “emergencies” and conspiracy theories, and the possibility of constructive discussion and action seems remote.

In view of these challenges, Andrew Spencer offers a balanced ethic of creation care, firmly grounded in classic, biblical, evangelical theology. The book is designed for two kinds of “educated church member” (p. 7): “First, faithful, orthodox Christians who have seen little reason to practice creation care”—to encourage them to regard stewardship of creation more positively; and, “Second, readers who are passionate about environmentalism and are questioning whether Christianity can be good for the environment”—to help them grow in their understanding of the faith and how it can and should ground a robust ethic of creation care (p. 8).

Part 1, “The Background of Creation Care,” sets the scene for the discussion. In chapter 1, “The Need for and Dangers of Environmental Ethics,” Spencer defends the value of Christian engagement in creation care in view of the imperatives to love our neighbor and preach the gospel. At the same time, he warns of the dangers of pursuing environmental concerns as a “big idea”: an ideology that replaces the gospel. In chapter 2, “Environmental Ethics and the Church,” Spencer provides a brief yet enlightening historical survey of interactions between environmental thinking and Christianity. In the process, he explodes some pervasive stereotypes (e.g., Lynn White’s thesis that “Christianity has literally ruined the world,” p. 32) while documenting ways in which Christians have at times been illegitimately apathetic towards environmental concerns, and yet at other times being overly captured by environmental ideology. This helps to provide some historical context for the suspicion surrounding these issues in modern evangelical discourse—a suspicion with which Spencer is sympathetic if not entirely in agreement.

Part 2, “A Theology for Creation Care,” is the book’s heart. In chapter 3, Spencer defends his methodology: “ethics flows out of theology” (p. 60). Against a liberal approach that entails “the abandonment of doctrines that do not seem practical” (p. 61), Spencer seeks to remain committed to orthodox Christian theology, applying classic doctrines to the environmental concerns we face. Four primary doctrinal loci are especially relevant to this question: revelation, creation, anthropology, and eschatology. These are the subjects of the following four chapters. In chapter 4, Spencer discusses the relationship between special revelation and general revelation (especially discernible in science) in ethical reasoning, insisting that the inerrant Scriptures retain primary authority even as we learn from scientific insights. In chapter 5, Spencer discusses the value of God’s created order. While only the triune God has “intrinsic” value, God’s creation possesses an “inherent” value imparted to it by its creator. Therefore, God’s creation is not merely of “instrumental” value to us. This distinction enables Spencer to oppose both pantheism and gnostic dualism. In chapter 6, Spencer makes the case that human beings should be seen as “stewards” of creation, with a special yet limited responsibility to manage and rule God’s creation on behalf of the creator. This responsibility has been affected but not eradicated by the fall. “The call for humans, then, is not to live unthinkingly according to our fallen nature, but for born-again believers to be thoughtful as we steward God’s creation by the Spirit until Christ restores it all from sin’s pervasive pollution” (p. 110).

In chapter 7, Spencer addresses the most central topic to his argument (and probably the most contested): eschatology. He deliberately puts to one side discussions of eschatological chronology, instead focusing on the more directly relevant questions concerning Christ’s redemptive work in relation to creation and the continuity/discontinuity between old and new creation. He affirms that redemption is, at its heart, a matter of the salvation of individuals from their sins through Christ’s atoning death and resurrection (e.g., 1 Cor 15:3–4). Nevertheless, the effects of Christ’s death and resurrection are cosmic in scope, and so concern all of God’s creation (e.g., Col 1:20; Rom 8:19–22). Hence “the resurrection of Christ is the central aspect of all of ethics, especially an ethics of creation care” (p. 129). Since Christ’s resurrection body is both continuous and discontinuous with his earthly body (e.g., John 20:19–20), something analogous may be said for the new creation vis-à-vis the old. Spencer argues that 2 Peter 3:10, commensurate with the rest of the Scriptures, does not support a stark and total “destruction” of the old creation but a purging “renewal” through judgment. He follows Francis Schaeffer in arguing that our present response to this future renewal of creation should involve not disengagement from creation but “substantial healing,” in which Christian hope leads us “to pursue redemptive actions that push back the effects of the fall” (p. 139). This, however, as Spencer carefully explains, is not to be confused with “perfect restoration”:

Healing is the final state that will be brought about by God’s sovereign work. Substantial modifies that concept to what is within our capability at this time.… Substantial healing recognizes the reality that perfect restoration will not be achieved by humanity without final supernatural intervention. (pp. 140–41, emphasis original)

Part 3, “The Practice of Creation Care,” seeks to outline some concrete ethical implications. In chapter 8, Spencer discusses the question of the church’s mission and how it relates to creation care. While he is in broad agreement with Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert that the church’s mission is fundamentally a matter of making disciples by proclaiming the gospel (What Is the Mission of the Church? Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011]), he is concerned to ensure that a proper focus on verbal proclamation for discipleship does not undermine the importance of the faithful practice of discipleship. He again follows Schaeffer in imagining the church as a “pilot plant” (pp. 157–59), where the faithful practice of discipleship prototypically enacts and demonstrates how the gospel transforms individuals, societies, and thereby the world. At the same time, he warns against the danger of “mission drift,” since the gospel (not environmental concerns) must remain central.

In chapter 9, Spencer briefly addresses the difficulties inherent in modern political discourse surrounding climate change. He argues that holiness and hope, rather than fear and despair, must drive our engagement as Christians. In chapter 10, he suggests practical ways Christians and Christian communities can live hope-filled lives that make a real difference. He argues for restrained regulation (fascinatingly, citing Milton and Rose Friedman’s advocacy of a pollution tax!) and provides concrete, achievable examples of ecologically helpful actions that local churches and individuals can take in response to the gospel and for the good of their neighbors.

Overall, Spencer’s book is a wide-ranging, biblically coherent, evangelically orthodox discussion that brings to bear key theological topics relevant to an ethic of creation care and draws balanced and practical implications from them. A minor question in this reviewer’s mind was whether Spencer’s strong advocacy of Schaeffer’s visions of “substantial healing” and the church as a “pilot plant” might lead readers to think of redemption too much in terms of grace perfecting nature and thereby downplay the effects of sin in our lives and our world. However, this is more a matter of emphasis and is clearly not Spencer’s intention.

Ironically, one of the book’s greatest strengths—its irenic and balanced tone throughout—may sadly end up being a weakness in terms of its reception. Given the highly polarized nature of the present debate over climate change, it could be easy for both “sides” to reject the book because it is not shrill enough. I pray that this is not the case, however, and encourage evangelicals to thoughtfully consider the strengths and implications of Spencer’s arguments as we live in hope, grounded in the gospel of Christ crucified and risen, in God’s created world.

---