---------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute. ---------------------------------------------------------------- COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS: This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware," without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute"). This data file may not be used without the permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to exceed more than 500 words. If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale, please give the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Book Reviews" (a column from the Christian Research Journal, Spring 1992, page 36) by Elliot Miller and Paul Carden. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller. ------------- *A Summary Critique* *Toward a Transpersonal Ecology: Developing New Foundations for Environmentalism* Warwick Fox (Shambala, 1990) In this election year many Americans are hearing for the first time about "Green politics" (also known as New Age politics), as Green Party candidates seek office in numerous local elections. The same phenomenon swept much of Western Europe in the 1980s, and now the Greens are well represented in the national legislatures of several countries, including Germany. Green politics has a distinctive ecological and spiritual orientation based in an environmental philosophy called "deep ecology." _Toward a Transpersonal Ecology_ -- whose author, Warwick Fox, is a National Research Fellow at the Centre for Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania -- is the best introduction to deep ecology in print. In 1962 Rachel Carson's _Silent Spring,_ a book about the pollution of the environment, launched the modern-day environmental movement. The movement accelerated with the 1972 publication of the Club of Rome's _The Limits to Growth._ Then, in the mid 1970s, the discipline of environmental philosophy/ethics (or _ecophilosophy_) began to flourish. Even today, however, "ecophilosophy is still very much a marginal rather than a mainstream pursuit in contemporary academic philosophy" (p. 9). In the early 1970s eminent Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess began classifying ecophilosophers as either "shallow" or "deep." This typology was one of many then used to describe the difference between an anthropocentric (man-centered) and ecocentric (environment-centered) approach to ecology. In the early 1980s it rose to prominence becoming the main way ecophilosophers are classified. Shallow ecology is environmental protection which does not arise from a new way of thinking about man's relation to the environment. Deep ecologists cite the philosophy of humanism and the animal liberation movement as examples of shallow ecology (66). Deep ecology differs from mainstream New Age thinking in its rejection of humanism, blaming anthropocentrism for virtually all of our environmental woes. Anthropocentrism is described by deep ecologists as both chauvinism and imperialism, only -- unlike other expressions of these evils -- it is rarely noticed. Even when concerns about environmental abuse are raised, arguments are couched in terms of preserving _human_ resources rather than preserving nature for its own sake or for its value to _nonhuman_ beings. "Thus, even many of those who deal most directly with environmental issues continue to perpetuate, however unwittingly, the arrogant assumption that we humans are central to the cosmic drama; that, essentially, the world is made for us. John Seed...writes: 'The idea that humans are the crown of creation, the source of all value, the measure of all things is deeply embedded in our culture and consciousness'" (11). What about the biblical view that _God,_ not _man,_ is the source of all value? "From a nonanthropocentric perspective, personalistic kinds of theocentrism, such as the dominant form of Christianity where humans are made in the image of a god to whom they have a privileged personal relationship, are in any case simply anthropocentric _projections_ upon the cosmos" (9). The anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches have been classified as _instrumental_ and _intrinsic_ value theories, respectively. According to instrumental value theory, humans "are valuable in and of themselves but...the nonhuman world is valuable only insofar as it is of value _to_ humans" (149). Thus, nature's value is _only_ as a means or _instrument_ to human ends. According to intrinsic value theory, at least some aspects or members of the nonhuman world are valuable in and of themselves. Fox describes three instrumental value theory approaches: (1) _unrestrained exploitation and expansionism_ values transforming nature without concern for depleting resources for future generations; (2) _resource conservation and development_ also values transforming the nonhuman world, but recognizes the limitations of resources; (3) _resource preservation_ stresses the _instrumental_ value of nature to humans if some of it is left untransformed. The author then details five intrinsic value theory approaches: (1) _ethical sentientism_ proposes that intrinsic value belongs to any creature possessing _sentience:_ the capacity for sense perception; (2) _life-based ethics_ holds that because all living entities (sentient or not) are continually engaged in self-regeneration, they should be considered ends in themselves and not mere means to ends; (3 and 4) _ecosystem ethics_ and _ecosphere ethics_ maintain that local ecosystems and the planetary ecosphere (sometimes called "Gaia") are in a sense living systems and thus have intrinsic value; (5) _cosmic purpose ethics_ finds value in nonhuman entities by virtue of their being expressive of some _cosmic_ interest (e.g., evolution or the nature or purposes of God). Although deep ecology is aligned with the interests of intrinsic value theory approaches, there is much ambiguity and confusion over whether all ecocentric approaches should be classified as deep ecology. This is because the term has been used in three distinct and differing senses. In his original and _formal_ use of _deep_ in deep ecology, Naess refers "to the idea that deep ecological views, in contrast to shallow ecological views, are derived from _fundamental_ valuations and hypotheses that are arrived at by a process of asking progressively deeper questions" (126). He prefers to reserve the term deep for "primarily the level of questioning, not the content of the answer" (102). Naess, Fox observes, makes the mistake of _assuming_ that anyone who develops an ecophilosophy from fundamentals will arrive at an ecocentric view. But Fox demonstrates how a fundamentalist Christian or an evolutionist could derive a logically consistent anthropocentric environmental philosophy from their own fundamentals. Thus, Naess's formal sense of deep ecology cannot really be limited to the philosophical and popular expressions that are associated with that term. As Naess applied his formal definition by developing his own personal deep ecology, the _philosophical_ sense of the term was born. For Naess, _the_ fundamental value is "Self-realization." Naess's greatest philosophical inspirations have been the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, the Indian political reformer Mahatma Gandhi, and Buddhist psychology. From the pantheist (i.e., believing God is all) Spinoza, Naess derived the idea that the driving force of creation is Self-realization or identification of the finite part with the infinite Whole (i.e., God). From Gandhi he concluded that this goal is best achieved through service of the world rather than abandonment of it. And from Buddhism he adopted a view of the self as process rather than substantial entity. Fox summarizes Naess's philosophical sense of deep ecology as follows: "Naess's fundamental...norm of 'Self-realization!' refers to the this-worldly realization of as expansive a sense of self as possible in a world in which selves and things-in-the-world are conceived as processes" (113-14). Thus, serving the needs of the physical world (environmental action) can facilitate one's personal growth. Naess's _popular_ sense of deep ecology refers to the ecological views shared by those who (in his view) engage in deep (questioning) ecology. Naess and deep ecologist George Sessions developed an eight-point platform characterizing the basic principles of the movement. These stress the intrinsic value of all life on earth; the value of humans preserving the richness and diversity of life forms (the only exception would be in serving _vital_ human needs); the environmental importance of decreasing human population; the need for radical change in policies affecting economic, ideological, and technological structures; and the importance of valuing life quality over increasingly higher standards of living. To correct the ambiguity brought by these conflicting uses of deep ecology, Fox prefers the term _ecocentric ecology movement_ for Naess's popular sense of deep ecology. People who hold these principles are not actually limited to Naess's movement but include all who take a nonanthropocentric approach to ecological issues. He also proposes a change of name for that sense of the term which he considers most significant -- the philosophical: "Since this approach is one that involves the realization of a sense of self that extends beyond (or that is _trans-_) one's egoic, biographical, or personal sense of self, the clearest, most accurate, and most informative term for this sense of deep ecology is, in my view, _transpersonal ecology"_ (197). Those familiar with recent trends in psychology will recognize that Fox has employed a term used to describe a pantheistic or panentheistic (all is in God) offshoot of humanistic psychology: _transpersonal psychology._ Fox affirms that the above manner of defining _transpersonal_ (i.e., "beyond" one's personal sense of self) is exactly the meaning the originators of transpersonal psychology (Abraham Maslow, Stanislav Graf, and Anthony Sutich) had in mind. He observes: "The fact that the term _transpersonal_ derives from recent work in psychology is appropriate since Naess's philosophical sense of deep ecology obviously refers to a psychologically based approach to the question of our relationship with the rest of nature as opposed to an axiologically based (i.e., a value theory based) approach" (196). Fox hinges his argument for a psychological, rather than value theory-based, approach to ecophilosophy on an acceptance of the tripartite model of the human self found in many schools of psychology (e.g., the _id, superego,_ and _ego_ in Freudian analysis). The author himself prefers the terms _desiring-impulsive self_ (i.e., id), _normative-judgmental self_ (i.e., superego), and _rationalizing-deciding self_ (i.e., ego). According to this model, the will of each individual is represented by the _rationalizing-deciding self,_ who must continually arbitrate between the competing demands of the self-centered, irresponsible, unrealistic _desiring-impulsive self_ and the idealistic, self-judging, at times also unrealistic _normative-judgmental self._ He argues that each of these selves fits one or more of the value theories described above: the _desiring-impulsive self_ corresponds to the unrestrained exploitation and expansionism approach. The _rationalizing-deciding self_ is expressed in the resource conservation and development and resource preservation approaches (i.e., they are seeking to find a compromise between ideals and desires). And the _normative-judgmental self_ is found in all intrinsic value approaches. The "bottom line" of Fox's analogy is this: despite their laudable goals, intrinsic value theory approaches are unrealistic. No one is all _normative-judgmental self._ The _desiring-impulsive self_ will make its demands, the _rationalizing-deciding self_ will find compromises between the two, and the environment will suffer as a result. In a word, human nature is too _selfish_ to live consistently with intrinsic value theories. What hope is there then for the environment? This is where deep ecologists believe they have the answer. Fox argues that "transpersonal ecology emphasizes a fundamentally different kind of self to those... in the...tripartite model of the psyche. This is because, whatever their qualitative differences, the desiring-impulsive self, the rationalizing-deciding self, and the normative-judgmental self all refer to a narrow, atomistic, or particle-like conception of self whereas the transpersonal self refers to a wide, expansive, or field-like conception of self" (215). Transpersonal ecology, suggests Fox, transcends this basic human dilemma caused by selfish desires competing with the demands of conscience. Moral demands, he tells us, are directed to and thereby reinforce the primary reality of the narrow, atomistic, or particle-like sense of self. In contrast...the transpersonal ecology conception of self is a wide, expansive, or field-like conception from the outset. This has the highly interesting, even startling, consequence that ethics (conceived as being concerned with moral "oughts") is rendered superfluous! The reason for this is that if one has a wide, expansive, or field-like sense of self then...one will naturally (i.e., spontaneously) protect the natural (spontaneous) unfolding of this expansive self (the ecosphere, the cosmos) in all its aspects. (217) He then quotes Naess: "Just as we need no morals to make us breathe...[so] if your 'self' in the wide sense embraces another being, you need no moral exhortation to show care...." (_Ibid._). Elsewhere Naess comments: "Maturity in humans can be measured along a scale from selfishness to Selfishness, that is, broadening and deepening the self, rather than measures of dutiful altruism" (220-21). Fox describes three ways of achieving this sense of identification: _personal_ (brought about through involvement with the entities with which one identifies); _ontological_ (brought about through mystical realization of the _fact_ of existence); and _cosmological_ (brought about through a deep-seated realization that all entities are aspects of a single, unfolding reality). A book could be written in reply to the issues Fox raises for evangelical Christians. Here, I can only address a few key points. We must ask where Christians belong in the anthropocentric/ecocentric and instrumental value/intrinsic value debates. Although many Christians have thought of nature merely in instrumental terms, Scripture actually provides a firm basis for its intrinsic value. In Genesis 1 we find that when God completed various aspects of His creative work He "saw that [they were] good," _even before man was there to enjoy them_ (vv. 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). Since He pronounced all of His creation "very good" (v. 31), all of nature has intrinsic value. We must avoid an either-or mentality, for there is _both_ instrumental _and_ intrinsic value in all of nature. God had man in mind when He created the world (Gen. 2), but ultimately He created it for Himself (Col. 1:16). Biblically the answer lies neither with an anthropocentric nor an ecocentric approach. What is needed is a _theocentric_ view that allows for value in all things created by God _because_ they were created by God, yet also allows for special value in man because he is created in the image of God, who is the Ultimate Value (_see,_ e.g., Matt. 10:29, 31, where the sparrow has intrinsic value, but man has greater value). In dismissing the claim that man is created in the image of God as a mere anthropocentric projection on the universe, deep ecologists are making a critical mistake: they are failing to seriously investigate the possibility that this doctrine is rather the result of divine revelation. For had they carefully considered the evidence for biblical claims, they would have to acknowledge that such a position is at least tenable. The deep ecologists' critique of anthropocentrism must be evaluated carefully. There are aspects of it that a Christian can applaud. Certainly, the humanistic _over_valuing of man that says we are "the source of all value, the measure of all things" (11) is the antithesis of the biblical view. On the other hand, the biblical world view protects against a dangerous _under_valuing of man. For it is only "arrogance" to say humans are "central to the cosmic drama" and "the crown of creation" if in fact we are not so. Fox equates the belief that humans are morally superior to other animals with "the relentless exploitation of the nonhuman world by humans" (22). But this does not follow _if_ man's "dominion" over the world is to be one of benign stewardship, not relentless exploitation (on this, _see_ my book, _A Crash Course on the New Age Movement_ [Baker Book House, 1989], 85-86). While Fox makes clear the consequences for the _environment_ of an anthropocentric approach, he does not adequately consider the consequences for _humanity_ of a strictly ecocentric approach. Is it wrong, for example, to inject chimpanzees with the AIDS virus in the hopes of finding a cure for the epidemic? To be consistent, an ecocentric philosopher would have to say _yes._ But his (or her) answer might very well change if he or someone he loves contracts the disease. And this is not just a matter of one species being true to its own kind. We instinctively know (at least when we are forced to choose between humans and nonhumans) that a human life is of greater worth than other kinds of animal life. The Bible provides both a basis for utter humility and a basis for extraordinary worth to human beings. It provides a basis for man's using creation's resources, but also for setting healthy limits to that use. Both are essential if we are to forge and maintain a humane world in the twenty-first century. Finally, we must consider Fox's proposal of a psychological approach to environmental concern rather than a value-based approach. It must first be acknowledged that there is value in cultivating awareness of how the individual participates in wider natural processes. But, though such identification can promote environmental sensitivity, _it cannot relieve the need for ethics._ Fox would eliminate the whole issue of moral responsibility by expanding the boundaries of self, but human selfishness cannot be expanded until it becomes unselfishness. This is just the wishful thinking of pantheists. It is impossible to define morality away: man always lives with "oughts"; it is part of his constitution. For example, deep ecologist John Livingston first states that "ethics and morals are unknown in nature," that they are "prosthetic devices" invented by our species, that "the notion of rights as applied to interspecies affairs is probably a blind alley," and that what we need instead is an "extended consciousness which transcends mere self." But he immediately goes on to say: "I see this extended sense of belonging as a fundamental biological (and thus human) _imperative. I think the thwarting of such an imperative is in some absolute sense wrong"_ (228, emphasis added). It must be conceded that if the pantheistic world view were true, identification would be superior to morality. But the very fact that identification cannot be practiced consistently in place of morality is a proof that the pantheistic world view is _not_ true. Morality is a factor that gives _meaning_ and _dignity_ to man's existence. It must be faced squarely and its demands met. To define it out of existence is to _depersonalize_ (not "transpersonalize") man -- to reduce him to something less than he actually is. Replacing morality with identification is simply cosmic narcissism in which true, other-oriented love (the highest attainment possible to man, modeled and taught by Christ [John 13:34-35; 15:13]) becomes a lost possibility. What is really needed in environmental ethics, then, as in all spheres of ethics, is the dynamic power of truly selfless love for God and all His "good" works -- a power made available (as such saints as Francis of Assisi have demonstrated) through a vital Christian faith. -- _Elliot Miller_ ------------- *Dead Air* Bob Larson (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991) Satanic ritual abuse (SRA) is a complex, highly volatile issue that has polarized law-enforcement personnel, serious researchers, and the therapeutic community. Emotions run high, and for some the temptation to oversimplify and sensationalize can be overwhelming (_see_ the Winter 1992 CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL). _Dead Air_ is Bob Larson's second book on Satanism. On the August 28, 1991 "Larry King Live" he explained: "It details the horrible tragedy of satanic ritual abuse in this country. It's a novel, but it's based on fact." Thanks to its best seller status, this book could shape many Christians' perception of SRA claims in much the same way that Frank Peretti's _This Present Darkness_ aroused widespread interest in spiritual warfare and the New Age movement. _Dead Air_ is set in the fictional town of Clarion, Indiana. Its protagonist, Wes Bryant, is a non-Christian who hosts the local radio talk show. One day a frightened little girl calls his program, saying, "I'm afraid of them! I've gotta talk to somebody.--They hurt me bad." At first skeptical, then troubled, Bryant launches his own investigation. Uncovering evidence of foul play, he wonders: "What was _really_ going on in Columbus County, while the general populace worried about hog prices and soil conditions?" Well, seething beneath Clarion's dilapidated exterior is a horrifying secret: the town is controlled by a powerful, sophisticated band of sadistic perverts, the "Order of the Dark Raven." This cabal includes the local judge, a physician, the sheriff, a congressman -- even a couple of pastors. One moonlit night Bryant secretly witnesses the girl being viciously abused by the cultists. When he seeks help and no one believes him, Bryant sets off on a desperate mission to rescue the girl and bring the villains to justice. Unfortunately, much of what follows is as improbable as the gooey blood dripping out of a microphone on the book's cover. At the plot's violent climax, Bryant confronts and kills the "Dark Raven" himself -- the girl's incestuous father. But unlike _This Present Darkness,_ if anything much is going on in the heavenlies, the reader is the last to know. In fact, powerless Christians seem to be the sadists' favorite target: The Reverend Carmichael -- the only heroic Christian figure in the book -- has his heart brutally cut from his writhing body, sliced, and eaten by grinning cult members -- on Halloween, no less. The few remaining believers offer little more than human warmth or vaguely inspiring platitudes. As for Bryant -- who's been mad at God for years -- after overcoming the forces of evil by his own cunning and persistence, he seems only slightly more open to the Lord than he was at the start. Indeed, the scriptural counterpoint to the horrors _Dead Air_ portrays is all but nonexistent (an omission typical of other Larson works on Satanism). One may rightly question the value of material that drags the consumer through so much spiritual sickness, while neglecting to clearly present the antidote available through Christ alone. Given its graphic depiction of perversions that responsible evangelical publishers would consider unprintable, _Dead Air_ has dubious value as "Christian entertainment." In fact, it clearly violates Ephesians 5:11-12. (Some of the acts described are so revolting that the characters themselves can't help but vomit.) Worse yet, _Dead Air_ carries no warning to unsuspecting buyers that its contents are absolutely inappropriate for children or teenagers. Finally, _Dead Air_ promotes a lopsided, conspiratorial view grounded in "evidence" that's shaky at best. Such inflammatory fiction does nothing to promote understanding or to help real victims of Satanism, while fueling the sort of paranoia that's brought fruitless, calamitous cult scares to scores of American communities. -- _Paul Carden_ ------------- End of document, CRJ0102A.TXT (original CRI file name), "Book Reviews" release A, May 31, 1994 R. Poll, CRI (A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Christian Research Journal is published quarterly by the Christian Research Institute (CRI) -- founded in 1960 by the late Dr. Walter R. Martin. While CRI is concerned with and involved in the general defense of the faith, our area of research specialization is limited to elements within the modern religious scene that compete with, assault, or undermine biblical Christianity. These include cults (that is, groups which deny essential Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the Trinity); the occult, much of which has become focused in the contemporary New Age movement; the major world religions; and aberrant Christian teachings (that is, teachings which compromise or confuse essential biblical truth). Regular features of the Journal include "Newswatch," witnessing tips and book reviews. CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL RATES: (subject to change) One Year Two Years U.S. Residents [ ] 20.00 [ ] 37.00 Canadian (U.S. funds) [ ] 24.00 [ ] 44.00 Other Foreign (U.S. funds) [ ] 36.00 [ ] 66.00 Please make checks payable to CRI To place a credit card order by phone, call us toll-free at: (800) 2-JOURNAL To subscribe to the Christian Research Journal, please print this coupon, fill in the necessary information and mail it with your payment to: CRI, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693-0500 [ ] Yes! I want to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal. Name: ___________________________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________ City, State, ZIP: __________________________________________ Country: _______________ Phone: ____________________________ ------------------ YOURS FOR THE ASKING Did you know that CRI has a wealth of information on various topics that is yours for the asking? In fact, a free subscription to the Christian Research Newsletter is yours if you contact CRI and ask for one saying that you found out about the offer from this computer text file. We offer a wide variety of articles and fact sheets free of charge. Write us today for information on these or other topics. Our first-rate research staff will do everything possible to help you. Christian Research Institute P.O. Box 500-TC San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693 (714) 855-9926 --------------- End of file.