Chris Thaete- Anna Peterson Study Questions - “In and of the World? Christian Theological Anthropology and Environmental Ethics” 

1. Paul wrote in Romans 12:2, “Do not be conformed to this world”.   What does Paul mean "this world"?  What are the implications of this statement? Does this shape Christian views into a less eco-friendly belief system (239)?  [Anderson:  To read Romans 12:2 in context click here.]
2. In Genesis 1 God gives man the ability to “subdue” and have “dominion” over nature. Does this mean that exploitation is acceptable or have other factors lead to the mistreatment of nature? Have these views led Judeo-Christian thought away from the stewardship model that many people feel was the original intent of these seemingly human centered world views (240)?
3. How does dualism shape Christian views, especially towards nature?
4. If Christians believe that humans are superior to all other creations on this earth why would they need to find justification in scriptures to take care of the earth during an ecological crisis? Is there any Biblical indication that the degradation of the environment hastens the Second Coming of the messiah as some have claimed? Or does it just ultimately make the world a poorer place to live in for everyone and everything involved including Christians?
5. Does individual salvation take precedence over other concerns in Christianity (243)?
6. Does the idea of “natural law” give credence to man’s domination over nature 245-247, 255-56)?
7. McFague says that the body is the only thing there is and that we should view the earth as “the body of God”. What kind of problems does this view make, especially for Christians (248)?
8. Does evolution threaten the human centeredness of Christian theology? Should Christianity adopt a more scientific based notion on the rise of humanity? Can the two ever be synthesized (250)?
9. Could evolution be teleological? Is evolution not only a biological process but a spiritual and moral one as well, leading to some sort of perfection (251)?
10. Is stewardship enough or is the environment too far gone for such a moderate view of environmentalism? Can only a more extreme environmental ethic hope to remedy some of the environmental damage and save the rest (256)?
11. How are Peterson’s conclusions similar to Lynn White’s? How are they different?