







































Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 49 

 

Reconciling Conservation and Development in 

an Era of Global Environmental Change: A 

Theocentric Approach 

 

Benjamin S. Lowe, Rachel L. Lamb, and Ruth Padilla-DeBorst
1 

 

 

 
Longstanding friction between socioeconomic development and biodiversity conservation has 

become increasingly untenable in an unprecedented era of anthropogenic global environmental 

change. Despite numerous and high-profile attempts at better integrating these often-competing 

priorities, unresolved tensions remain as a result of dueling worldviews and approaches: much of 

development tends to be anthropocentric (centered on humans) while much of conservation remains 

eco/biocentric (centered on the bio/ecosphere). We offer theocentrism as a biblically normative and 

conceptually effective way to transcend and reconcile these conflicting worldviews. After providing a 

brief biblical overview of theocentrism, we highlight seven theoretical implications of this worldview. 

We then offer four practical applications for faith-based organizations along with examples of 

Christian groups that are seeking to more holistically integrate conservation and development in their 

work around the world. 

 

 
Introduction 

Many argue that we are now living in the 

Anthropocene, an age in which human activity exerts a 

more significant influence on the environment than 

natural processes (Crutzen 2002; Lewis and Maslin 

2015; Steffen et al. 2011). Naming this geological epoch 

as the Anthropocene is a recognition of the “magnitude, 

variety, and longevity of human-induced changes” 

(Lewis and Maslin 2015, p. 171). Our species wields 

increasingly more power to shape the world and other 

lifeforms than ever before, and it is clear that the 

Anthropocene presents serious challenges for global 

development and conservation alike (Slimbach 2020). 

Through the ‘planetary boundaries’ paradigm, 

scientists have sought to identify a safe operating space 

for humanity, where human societies do not 

fundamentally alter the processes that regulate earth 

system functioning (Rockström et al. 2009). This 

framework provides a science-based analysis of the risk 

that humans, through business-as-usual activities, will 

destabilize the earth system at the planetary scale 

(Steffen et al. 2015). While acknowledging that some 

level of human activity is necessary and safe, this 

approach also emphasizes that maintaining the current 

 
1 The authors are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on this article. 

trajectory of change will result in severe consequences 

for many species, including the creation of a world 

unlike anything humans have experienced before. 

Within this context, the United Nations (UN) has 

declared 2021-2030 the Decade on Ecosystem 

Restoration (UN 2015). Situated across the UN’s 

seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this 

initiative elevates ecosystem services restoration as a 

global priority, with essential benefits for climate, 

biodiversity, food security, and water supply (Waltham 

et al. 2020). Along with other high-profile efforts, such 

as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on 

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), it 

highlights the growing recognition that integrating 

conservation and development is imperative to 

addressing the emergent problems of the 

Anthropocene. International funding structures such as 

the Green Climate and Green Development Funds 

have also formed to catalyze innovative programs at 

these intersections. Notwithstanding these efforts, the 

conservation and development communities have long 

struggled to reconcile their perspectives and priorities, 

and the tension between “people-first” or “nature-first” 

remains (Newsham and Bhagwat 2016). 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 50 

Despite its ability to uniquely engage conservation 

and development together, the Church and its 

ministries have largely fallen short in addressing this 

growing need and taking seriously the Anthropocene 

and its implications for ongoing growth and 

development. Pursuing the mutual flourishing of 

people and the rest of nature should be something 

Christians see as fundamentally biblical and well-

aligned with the mission of God’s people (Wright 2010; 

Moo and Moo 2018). Such an endeavor is an integral 

part of the Christian calling and offers an opportunity 

to help lead the transition toward a more faithful 

integration of what are often perceived as competing 

priorities in God’s world. 

There is also a growing openness and recognition 

across much of society that religion in general, and 

Christianity in particular, has the potential to make 

critical contributions in this nexus; not just around relief 

and development (e.g., Deneulin and Rakodi 2011; 

Tomalin 2015), but also when it comes to conserving 

biodiversity (e.g., Bhagwat et al. 2011; Mikusiński et al. 

2014), addressing climate change (e.g., Jenkins et al. 

2018; Wilkinson 2012), and promoting sustainable 

development (e.g., Deneulin et al. 2016; UNEP 2020; 

Tomalin et al. 2019). These perceptions derive from 

Christianity’s considerable ethical (and normative), 

socio-cultural, economic, and spiritual resources, 

which, when engaged via Christian relief and 

development organizations and Christian 

environmental organizations, serve as extended 

ministries of the Church and its members.  

In light of this opportunity for greater faithfulness, 

this paper provides an overview of current global efforts 

to integrate conservation and development, highlights 

the underlying conflict between anthropocentric versus 

bio/ecocentric perspectives, and proposes theocentrism 

as a more biblical and effective approach. We conclude 

by offering practical suggestions for how Christian non-

governmental organizations (NGOs) can pursue 

theocentric approaches to reconciling conservation and 

development. 

 

Recent Attempts at Integration 
Ongoing attempts to form an environmentally 

“sustainable” international development agenda sit 

against the backdrop of longstanding debate about 

whether and how to reconcile conservation and 

development. Although a full historical review is 

beyond the scope of this article, it is important to note 

that current conservation and development movements 

both stem heavily from the same historical processes of 

European imperial expansion and the intensification of 

global trade, with a particular focus on the 

commodification of nature (Castree, 2008, Newsham 

and Bhagwhat 2016). Economic activity and growth 

remain at the heart of developmental trajectories, while 

the imperative for conservation reflects a concern with 

these trajectories' environmental impacts (Newsham 

and Bhagwhat 2016). Though often perceived as 

oppositional, environmental historians note that 

international conservation interventions emerged from 

the same “kind of homogenizing, capital-intensive 

transformation of people, trade, economy and 

environment” that fueled European colonization 

(Grove, 1995:2, in Newsham and Bhagwhat 2016). 

Simply put, “it was this push for territory and trade 

which made scientific conservationism a truly global 

phenomenon” (Newsham and Bhagwhat 2016, 21).  

Despite their shared historical origins, 

conservation and development initiatives have largely 

been “organized to run along parallel tracks and to be 

kept separate from each other” (Newsham and Bhagwat 

2016, 76). Thus, the friction between conservation and 

development organizations stems in part from a history 

of attempting to impose an artificial dichotomy between 

nature and society, and between humans and 

wilderness (Ridder 2007, Siipi 2008). While 

conservation efforts are located in nature (and for 

nature), development is assumed to be in society (and 

for people) (Newsham and Bhagwat 2016).  

It is unsurprising then that many contemporary 

approaches to reconciling the two fall along a complex 

gradient including: “1) treatment of conservation and 

development as separate policy realms; 2) identification 

of poverty as a critical constraint on conservation; 3) 

recognition that conservation should not compromise 

poverty reduction; and 4) the assertion that effective 

conservation depends on poverty reduction” (Adams et 

al. 2004; as cited by Newsham and Bhagwat 2016, 211). 

The range of solutions supplied by conservation and 

development organizations are equally varied in 

emphasis.  

On the conservation front, at least three broad 

nature-based approaches exist for reconciling 

conservation and development in the Anthropocene, 

including neo-protectionism, natural capital 

conservation, and convivial conservation (Van Dyke 

and Lamb 2020a). For example, E.O. Wilson’s neo-

protectionist “half-earth” proposal would dedicate one 

half of the earth to nature and the other to humans 

living within a “safe operating zone” (Wilson 2016). 

This approach asserts that conservation can be used as 

a tool to protect nature from people. In contrast, natural 

capital conservationists suggest that such proposals are 

insensitive to human need and instead propose 

strategies for promoting the health and prosperity of 

people and nature together—an enlightened human, 

social, and economic development (Marvier et al. 

2019). Here, the conservation (or perhaps 

commodification) of nature is essentially for people. A 

third paradigm of ‘convivial conservation’ asserts that 

instead of marketing nature as potential capital 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 51 

accumulation, nature can be promoted as areas where 

people are considered “welcome visitors, dwellers or 

travelers rather than temporary alien invaders upon a 

nonhuman landscape” (Büscher and Fletcher 2019). 

The goal is to build “long-lasting, engaging and open-

ended relationships with nonhumans and ecologies,” 

supporting local ownership and management with 

conservation-based local incomes (Büscher and 

Fletcher 2019). Such an approach seeks to break the 

“from-humans and for-humans” dichotomies, but still 

leaves open-ended questions about implementation 

where there may be conflict between local, national, 

and global priorities in the face of rampant global 

environmental change. 

Such conversations in the world of conservation 

parallel discussions about appropriate integration from 

the vantage point of international development. The 

1972 Stockholm Conference is widely considered to be 

the start of sustainability thinking within the 

international development arena, paving the way for a 

series of subsequent multilateral negotiations. In 1992, 

the UN Conference on Environment and 

Development (the Rio Summit) resulted in the creation 

of five major environmental documents, including 

Agenda 21, a comprehensive work plan to address 

“social and economic dimensions of environment and 

development, conservation and management of 

resources, and means of implementation” (Van Dyke 

and Lamb 2020b, 516). 

An ambitious plan, the integration of social-

ecological decision-making has been hard to achieve in 

the context of international law and policy (Anderson et 

al. 2019). Agenda 21 led to the development of both 

the Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015) and 

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; 2016-2030), 

both of which include overtly environmental goals. In 

fact, the word “sustainable” in “SDG” suggests a cross-

cutting theme of environmental protection across all 

goals. Still, “to account for the competing political, 

socioeconomic, and environmental interests that are 

common in conservation policy, compromises are 

typically made during [SDG] target development and 

implementation, which can weaken their primary 

objectives” (Doherty et al. 2018, 810).  

The 1987 UN Brundtland Report, promising to 

diffuse tensions between environmental protection and 

economic growth, popularized the triple-bottom-line 

(people, profit, planet) approach, which claims to 

dissolve the old conflict between economic growth and 

biophysical limits, eliminate confrontation over who is 

entitled to the lion’s share of remaining growth, avert 

the question of northern overconsumption, and be 

universally applicable (Carruthers 2001). Despite the 

lofty rhetoric, many global initiatives have shown in 

practice that “when push has come to shove, 

safeguarding the prospects for short-to-medium term 

economic growth has been deemed more important 

than environmental concerns” (Newsham and Bhagwat 

2016, 41). There is a functional hierarchy to the “triple-

bottom-line” model. Post-development scholars have 

also questioned this concept of ‘sustainable 

development’ altogether, arguing that there should be 

alternatives to development itself, rather than 

alternative forms of development that still reflect 

capitalist ideologies (e.g., Escobar 1992, O’Connor and 

Arnoux 1993, Sachs 2010). 

 

Persisting Dichotomies 
This challenge of reconciliation persists in both the 

conservation and development communities. At the 

end of the day, the primary goal for many conservation 

organizations is still to protect biodiversity and ensure 

ecosystem health, with humans as a necessary but 

challenging species to motivate, respect, and involve. 

And, while promising sustainability, much of 

international development still starts with increasing the 

economic well-being of people through capitalism and 

claims environmental protection as a necessary but 

secondary and potentially compromisable objective. 

There is a wide range of programs designed to further 

reconciliation of these approaches, including integrated 

conservation and development projects (ICDPs), 

payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes, and 

community-based ecotourism ventures (Table 1). 

These efforts should not be underappreciated; we need 

creative solutions. Yet many of these efforts can still fall 

short because they are functionally anthropocentric at 

their core.  

These tensions have left organizations struggling 

along the continuum between anthropocentric (human-

centered) versus ecocentric (ecosystem-centered) or 

biocentric (life/biosphere-centered) efforts. Weak and 

strong versions of anthropocentrism and 

bio/ecocentrism play out in practice (Norton 2017), 

with the practitioner feeling like they are in an unending 

tug of war with no way out other than to pick a place on 

the rope and pull for their side. Even Aldo Leopold, 

considered one of the founders of ecocentrism through 

his development of the land ethic, may not have fully 

resolved the tension between claiming human 

responsibility for the conservation of the land-

community and simultaneously asserting that humans 

are only “plain members and citizens of it” (Leopold 

1949). 

Forging ahead on such a continuum has been 

made even more challenging in light of global 

environmental change, which is negatively impacting 

nearly every biogeochemical cycle, with correlated 

negative impacts on people (Foley et al. 2005; Foley et 

al. 2011). Human activity through industrialization and 

globalization is fundamentally altering our ecologies in 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 52 

ways that force us to reconsider the long-term viability 

of those very same activities (e.g., Vitousek et al. 1997; 

Tilman et al., 2002). In this context, “humans” and 

“nature” are regularly pitted against each other when, in 

fact, their futures are increasingly caught up together:

 

Table 1: Common approaches to integrating conservation and development globally* 

APPROACH DESCRIPTION
* 

RECENT REVIEWS 

Integrated 

Conservation and 

Development Projects 

Projects where local communities share the benefits of plant or animal 

resources at sustainable levels, take ownership of the conservation of 

such resources, and retain an active role in decisions affecting resource 

use and management to their individual and collective benefit  

Blom et al. 2010 

van Velden et al. 2020 

Payments for 

Ecosystem Services 

Voluntary, conditional agreements between at least one “seller” and 

one “buyer” targeting a well-defined environmental service or land use 

providing such a service; creates a novel market for goods and services 

that might otherwise be left out of traditional markets with clear 

economic incentives for protection 

Jack et al. 2008 

Farley and Constanza 

2010 

Community-based 

Ecotourism 

Travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and sustains 

the well-being of local people by linking conservation with local 

livelihoods; financial models can include initial investment capital 

from NGOs in exchange for biodiversity protection or center on 

tourism revenues  

Kiss 2004 

Ortega-Álvarez et al. 

2020 

* Descriptions derived from material in Van Dyke and Lamb 2020d 

 

[E]cological sustainability is the sine qua non for 

any talk of any other human or ethical concern. If 

we destroy the conditions of human life on the 

planet, no other concerns will be relevant at all. …  

The short history of the environmental movement 

clearly reveals that when human well-being is set 

against the well-being of other species, as in “save 

the babies, not the whales,” or “save our jobs, not 

the snails,” everyone loses (Gushee 2010, 253). 

 

The solutions we might have taken to address 

conservation and development challenges over the past 

century must now become “Anthropocene-informed,” 

including adaptive to new environmental conditions 

that may be rapidly diverging from historical precedent 

(Van Dyke and Lamb 2020c, Dhyani et al. 2020). The 

scale and pace of change underscore the importance of 

better coupling ecological and community resilience in 

the face of altered baselines, climate uncertainty, and 

shifting livelihoods (IRP 2019). Doing so from either an 

anthropocentric or ecocentric perspective only adds to 

the challenge. 

The urgency of our global situation has led some 

nation-states and international organizations to seek 

short-term solutions without full consideration of the 

long-term impacts. Some downplay the seriousness of 

global environmental challenges in order to focus on 

meeting current human needs first, utilizing the same 

approaches that created the problems to begin with. 

Others advocate the preservation of biodiversity and 

ecosystems, regardless of impacts on local human 

populations, intensifying tensions with communities 

and often undercutting their primary conservation 

goals. These reactions further magnify ongoing debates 

between diachronic (i.e., intergenerational) and 

synchronic justice, where “diachronic justice focuses on 

justice across time, in contrast to synchronic justice, 

which focuses on justice within the same time (e.g., 

among those currently alive)” (Lowe 2019, 481). 

Regardless of how these tensions are negotiated, it is 

increasingly important to include future generations as 

additional stakeholders in current deliberations around 

our “common but differentiated” responsibilities in the 

Anthropocene (Lowe 2019; Stone 2004). 

Ultimately, the pervasive “people versus nature” 

clash is a self-defeating and false dichotomy. Both 

development that ends up unsustainably degrading the 

environment and conservation that ends up oppressing 

and marginalizing people ultimately fail (Newsham and 

Bhagwat 2016). And half-hearted or incomplete 

attempts to integrate the two fail because human-

imposed hierarchies and interests still win the day. Even 

the term “ecosystem services” suggests an instrumental 

value of nature for people, with little to no 

consideration to the potential exclusion of the intrinsic 

value of non-human species. Goals must be explicit 

relative to intended ends, and we need more rigorous 

approaches that transcend dichotomies to truly pursue 

and value mutual flourishing as the primary goal. 

 

 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 53 

What Does a Biblical Perspective Offer? 
Counter to the above conflicting worldviews, the 

Bible offers a robust and distinctly theocentric 

approach to understanding reality, the world, and how 

humans fit in with the rest of the natural order. As its 

name suggests, theocentrism centers God and assents 

to God’s will and governance (Gustafson 1981). It 

emphasizes that “‘the earth is the LORD’s and all that 

is in it, the world, and those who live in it’ (Ps 24:1) … 

God is the source of creation; it is his amazing 

handiwork, and to God belongs ownership and rule 

over what he has created” (Gushee 2010, 247). It 

acknowledges the authorial claim of God over the 

entire created order (Gonzalez, 2015, 17). This directly 

contrasts with the “people-first” or “nature-first” 

approaches of anthropocentrism and bio/ecocentrism 

respectively (Table 2). 

 

Table 2: A generalized comparison of major worldviews related to the environment 

CATEGORY: ANTHROPO- 

CENTRISM 

BIO/ECOCENTRISM THEOCENTRISM 

Priority Human Beings All life/species (biocentrism) or 

ecosystems (ecocentrism) 

God 

Goal Advance human well-

being 

Advance biological or 

ecological well-being 

Advance/obey God’s will 

View of non-human 

creation 

Natural resources, to 

manage/exploit for the 

sake of humans 

Moral subjects, each with their 

own intrinsic worth and 

interests 

God’s creation; humans are 

to live responsibly with the 

rest of creation, which does 

not exist just for human use 

View of human 

creation 

Apex of the natural world 

with the right to use it for 

own purposes 

Problems to manage/restrain in 

order for nature to flourish 

unhindered 

Unique members of the 

community of creation 

tasked with the responsibility 

to serve as God’s 

ambassadors 

 

As the overarching and normative biblical 

worldview, theocentrism continually draws our 

attention back to God—the source and center of all 

value—and not to ourselves or our species: 

 

Although the Bible gives a great deal of attention to 

humans—it is indeed a text for and about humans—

they are everywhere in the Bible embedded in the 

larger context of the creation and especially in their 

relationship with God. If humans have intrinsic 

value in the biblical tradition, then so does the rest 

of the natural world because humans and the rest 

of the natural world are valuable as part of God’s 

creation—an ecocentric worldview, if you will. But 

the creation itself has value only in as much as it is 

the creation of God, who remains in relationship 

with it. God imputes the creation—humans, 

animals, the land—with value, and God the creator 

is the measure of all that is good and right in the 

world. The biblical worldview is first and foremost 

theocentric (Simkins 2014). 

 

Theocentrism thus grounds the value of all 

creation in its shared and sacred source, which is the 

Creator, not humans. 

Ironically, Christianity is widely perceived as (and 

often guilty of) being anthropocentric. In Western 

academic and scientific arenas, this association was 

popularized in large part by Lynn White Jr.’s seminal 

article, The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis 

(White 1967). A historian, White blames Western 

Christianity for driving environmental degradation by 

promulgating a worldview characterized by the hubristic 

domination of nature for human purposes. In other 

words, White asserts that Western Christianity 

promotes anthropocentrism and does so to great effect. 

While there is much to be said for White’s claims, 

considerable scholarship over the decades since has 

raised important nuances and critiques (e.g., Kanagy et 

al. 1995; Hitzhusen 2007; Djupe and Hunt 2009; Smith 

and Veldman 2020; Van Dyke 2005). As theologian 

Richard Young qualifies, while “the Church stands in 

need of an ecological reformation, the Christian 

Scriptures are not responsible for the ecological crisis” 

(Young 1994, 23). From a biblical and theological 

standpoint, Christianity is profoundly non-

anthropocentric (for that matter, it is also non-

eco/biocentric), though “actually occurring” Christian 

religion has often manifested as functionally 

anthropocentric in many contexts: “Western 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 54 

Christianity may indeed be the most anthropocentric 

religion the world has ever seen, as White claims, but 

only because Western culture, the offspring of the 

Enlightenment, is so anthropocentric” (Simkins 2014, 

399). 

 

Theocentrism and the Bible 

The arc of scripture from Genesis 1 through 

Revelation 22 (i.e., from the account of God creating 

the world to the description of God’s renewed creation) 

is defined from beginning to end by God’s engagement 

with all of creation, not just with humans: 

 

When we [open] the Bible and look especially for 

God’s relationship to other creatures and the 

creation, we find a God who creates other creatures 

and the creation (Gen 1-2), who declares them 

good (Gen 1:31), who feeds and sustains them (Ps 

104; Mt 6:26), who makes covenant with them 

(Gen 9), who protects them in his laws (Lev 25; 

Deut 6:14), who hears their groaning (Rom 8:28), 

and who promises their ultimate liberation from 

bondage” (Gushee 2010, 264-265). 

 

Passages such as Job 38-40, where God confronts 

Job with the magnificent scale and diversity of creation, 

serve to remind humans of our humble place before the 

Creator and ruler of all: “This is a far from 

anthropocentric vision of the cosmos…. This is a 

universe that is what it is quite independently of us. The 

effect on Job must be to decentre him away from his 

preoccupation with his own case” (Bauckham 2010, 

45). Psalm 104 conveys a similar message in the form 

of creational praise to God: 

 

After instancing many species individually, 

stressing their diversity, the psalm goes on to bring 

them all together, humans and other animals alike, 

in their common dependence on the Creator (vv 

27-30). What gives wholeness to the psalm’s 

reading of the world is not human mastery over it 

or the value humans set on it, not (in contemporary 

terms) globalization, but the value of all created 

things for God. This is a theocentric, not an 

anthropocentric world” (Bauckham 2010, 71). 

 

A more thorough analysis would unpack 

numerous additional passages, including the creation 

accounts in Genesis 1-2, the first recorded covenant 

with God in Genesis 9 (made not just with people but 

explicitly with all life on earth), and God’s granting of 

ethical and legal considerations through the law and 

prophets to all creation (humans, other animals, and 

even the land itself). 

We see God’s everlasting covenant with all life 

(from Genesis 9) persist through the New Testament, 

where the Apostle Paul teaches that our eternal destiny 

remains intertwined with the rest of creation. Not only 

is the rest of creation groaning with us, but God wills it 

this way in order that the rest of creation will also be 

liberated with us from sin and death (Romans 8). As 

Colossians 1:15-20 emphasizes, this comprehensive 

reconciliation and restoration is centered in the divine 

person and work of Christ and “offers a holistic vision 

of the whole creation integrated in Jesus Christ. It is he 

who ‘holds it all together’. He is intimately related to the 

whole, and the meaning of the whole creation consists 

in having Jesus Christ as its source, its focus, its healer 

and its goal” (Bauckham 2010, 157).  

The theocentric vision consistently rendered in the 

Bible is the restoration of shalom (i.e., harmony/right 

relationships and mutual flourishing) to all creation, as 

it was in the beginning (see Genesis 1-2) and will be at 

the end (see Revelation 22) (Woodley 2012). This 

vision is grounded in the love of God who is love (1 

John 4). Since God’s very nature is love, it follows that 

love is also foundational to reality in this world that we 

share with God’s other creatures (Young 1994, 90). As 

image-bearers of God, we are called to pattern ourselves 

after God in showing sacrificial love and concern for all 

creation: “The Christian concept of love is epitomized 

by God’s giving His Son for the sins of humanity (Rom. 

5:8). This selfless giving of oneself for the sake of others 

is the core of Christian ethical teaching, as is based on 

the character of God (1 John 4:7-21). The object of our 

love is not only God and fellow humans, but everything 

God loves, that is, His entire creation” (Young 1994, 

212). Thus, a worldview centered on God is defined by 

selfless love, which should direct how we live, create, 

and relate at every level, whether individually, 

collectively, or structurally/systemically (Lowe and 

Vena 2019).  

Furthermore, based on a biblical understanding of 

the Trinity, Christian theocentrism does not envision a 

single divine authority per se, but a God who is, in 

essence, the divine Community-of-Love. Father, Son 

and Holy Spirit are one in love, interrelated as the 

perfect community. Created in the image of God, then, 

human beings are essentially beings-in-relation. They 

are created by Community and for community. Full 

human flourishing takes place when people relate 

lovingly to the rest of the community of creation, of 

which we are a distinctive member, with particular 

responsibilities.  

From a biblical perspective, it is only when we align 

ourselves with a theocentric worldview—with God and 

God’s will at the center—that we can also pursue right 

relationships with each other and the rest of creation: 

“The Bible is a religion for people, directing them how 

to live together in justice and love, under God and 

within a nature with which they have an entwined 

destiny” (Rolston 1996, 24). In that sense, theocentrism 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 55 

integrates anthropocentric and eco/biocentric concerns 

without making either the ultimate end. In other words, 

it acknowledges the worth of both humans and 

nonhuman species, and recognizes the importance of 

their interests, but does not elevate them to the level of 

idolatry. With God as the ultimate end, theocentrism 

“overrides chauvinistic human speciesism” and “is 

simultaneously biocentric and anthropocentric because 

it is so deeply theocentric” (Gushee 2010, 264). 

Theocentrism thus serves as a prophetic challenge 

to the work of relief and development, which all too 

often skews toward viewing and framing goals and 

outcomes in anthropocentric terms: 

 

The biblical worldview offers a challenge to the 

anthropocentrism that has infected Western 

Christianity since the Enlightenment by dethroning 

humans from their artificial (human-made) 

precipice overlooking the natural world. Humans 

are part and parcel of the creation, along with the 

rest of the natural world, and their role within the 

creation cannot separate them from the creation 

(Simkins 2014, 411). 

 

Implications of Theocentrism 

As a comprehensive and orientating worldview, 

theocentrism offers at least seven interrelated 

implications for reconciling conservation and 

development (Table 3). 

 

Table 3: Seven implications of Theocentrism 

IMPLICATION: SUMMARY DESCRIPTION: 

Fosters humility Places God—and God’s mission and vision—at the center of reality and purpose; 

submits to God’s will/governance and accepts the finitude and limitations of humans 

and all other aspects of creation. 

Reassesses value Understands that all creation—human and non-human—has intrinsic value that comes 

from God, apart from any instrumental value it may also have for any individual 

species, group, or individual. 

Affirms human 

responsibility 

Acknowledges the unique capacity and role humans are created and called to serve 

in, as image-bearers of God, to represent and join in manifesting God’s desires for 

this world. 

Embraces interrelationship Sees all Creation as intricately interconnected and interdependent with itself and its 

Creator (sharing the same Creator also implies a level of kinship between humans 

and other species); these relationships have been fractured by sin but are being 

reconciled through the redeeming love and mission of God. 

Recognizes God’s 

involvement 

 

Appreciates that God remains deeply engaged with creation, including in ways we do 

not comprehend and that are separate from us. This frees us from trying to save the 

world on our own, and instead empowers us to offer up our efforts as worship and 

witness. 

Reframes conflict Understands that God created the world to flourish in a state of shalom and that there 

ultimately should not be any inherent conflict between advancing God’s will and 

advancing the true interests of creation (human and non-human). 

Confronts idolatry Challenges all worldviews or ideologies that attempt to center humans, any other 

species, or any aspect of creation above or in competition with the Creator. 

 

First, by acknowledging God at the center of reality 

and seeking to decenter ourselves, theocentrism helps 

us better recognize and come to terms with all that we 

cannot yet fully understand or reconcile, and thus “both 

expresses and nourishes a religious moral attitude of 

humility” (Gustafson 1994, 74). Cultivating a posture of 

humility toward our place in the world is precisely what 

Lynn White Jr. prescribes in order to address the 

arrogant anthropocentric attitude of domination that 

drives the ecological crisis (White 1967). As Peter 

Harris notes from his work founding the international 

Christian conservation organization, A Rocha: “If we 

recognize that the world exists primarily for the Creator, 

and only secondarily to satisfy our material needs, we 

have a basis for that humility, and our active 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 56 

relationship with the Creator provides the context for 

the Christian field worker” (Harris 2000, 119).  

Second, theocentrism recognizes and affirms the 

inherent worth and rights of all creation, thus 

challenging the “modern assumption that nature must 

serve human interests” (Jenkins 2013, 80). The ultimate 

value of all creation--human and non-human--comes 

from the same source: “[In] a theocentric perspective 

all creational value is derived value, in that God the 

Creator is the one who authoritatively declares and 

demonstrates the value of all things that he has made” 

(Gushee 2010, 263). In other words, the rest of creation 

has intrinsic value above and beyond the instrumental 

value that humans might ascribe to parts of it at any 

given time or place: “[E]arth’s abundance is not just ‘raw 

materials’ for industry. It is not just ‘natural resources’ 

or ‘real estate.’ The fruit of the earth is not just 

‘commodities.’ It is God’s good, morally valued 

creation—a partner in a covenant pact with God that still 

holds” (Snyder 2014, sec 5). Thus, like humans, all 

other lifeforms are also moral subjects (i.e., they can be 

treated rightly and wrongly) and possess their own God-

ordained interests—that we are called to recognize and 

respect—independently of our own. 

Third, while theocentrism affirms that all creation 

has God-derived intrinsic value, it also embraces the 

unique role and responsibility that humans are 

entrusted with on behalf of God (as a function of the 

imago Dei), which has been described alternately as 

being stewards, vice-regents, ambassadors, and priests. 

This diverges markedly from the biospheric/species 

egalitarianism common across biocentrism and 

ecocentrism, which views humans as no more than 

plain members of the community of creation along with 

all other species (Leopold 1949; Taylor 1986). Thus, 

theocentrism provides the foundation for asserting that, 

while we are moral subjects along with the rest of 

creation, we are also moral agents given responsibilities 

by God within creation. This distinction is for the 

purpose of loving service, however, and not domination 

(at least not in the fallen and anthropocentric terms this 

word is often twisted into representing): “Theocentrism 

preserves the Christian insight into the nature of 

humankind as the image of God, without giving 

humanity license to dominate or despoil the earth... 

Theocentrism condemns the tragic distortions of 

anthropocentrism, while affirming mankind’s [sic] 

priestly role at the center of creation” (Rossi 1988, 13). 

Old Testament theologian Daniel Block unpacks this 

servant role further using the example of Noah in 

Genesis 6-9: 

 

As the image of God, Noah was deputized to 

represent the cosmos in God’s covenant 

confirmation process, but throughout he functions 

primarily in the interests of the creatures, rather 

than having them serve him. As the fountainhead 

of humanity, Noah’s actions are paradigmatic for 

all his successors who encounter threats to the 

environment. Based on very specific divine 

instructions, Noah built the ark to preserve animal 

life in the plurality of species and its rich biological 

diversity (Block 2010, 132). 

 

Thus, bearing the image of God is a functional 

distinction that provides both the divine authority and 

unique capacity to govern the world with care. But it is 

clear from scripture that humans are to represent God’s 

interests here—not our own—and to govern the world in 

line with the kingdom of God and the humble model 

of sacrificial servanthood embodied by Christ. 

Fourth, theocentrism affirms a central tenet of 

ecology: everything is integrally connected and 

interdependent. We cannot separate ourselves from 

the rest of creation, nor can we separate the rest of 

creation from us: “Biblically, it is wrong either to elevate 

the environment over human beings or to stress human 

uniqueness to the point that we miss our utter earth-

dependence. The biblical way is not to place one over 

the other but to see the interdependence built into 

God’s order. Here we think ecologically if we think 

biblically…” (Synder 2014, sec 5). Importantly, what 

makes this view theocentric (and not just ecocentric) is 

that these relationships do not exist and persist on their 

own but flow from and are centered in God: 

“[E]verything is naturally connected to everything else 

because God is All in all and everything is connected to 

God, Who is the first principle of theocentrism” (Rossi 

1988, 14). Of course, a natural consequence of such an 

interconnected community of creation is that, for better 

and for worse, we impact those around us (whether 

human or non-human) and they impact us:  

 

What we have in common with the lilies of the field 

is not just that we are creatures of God, but that we 

are fellow-members of the community of God’s 

creation, sharing the same Earth, affected by the 

processes of the Earth, affecting the processes that 

affect each other, with common interests at least in 

life and flourishing, with the common end of 

glorifying the Creator and interdependent in the 

ways we do exactly that (Bauckham 2010, 88). 

 

Fifth, and building on the above, theocentrism 

prompts us to recognize that God relates to and is 

involved in the rest of creation quite apart from human 

mediation. While Biblical theocentrism lays out a 

meaningful role for humans as divinely commissioned 

agents of God, it affirms that God also maintains a 

direct relationship with and is actively engaged in the 

world independently of us: “[S]o long as we avoid the 

anthropocentric fantasy that God relates to the rest of 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 57 

creation only via humans, it is easy to realize that there 

must be a great deal about God’s relationship to other 

creatures that we shall never know – at least, this side of 

the end of history” (Bauckham 2010, 147). This 

realization is a source of encouragement for all who are 

deeply concerned about the bleak state of the world and 

our woefully limited ability to right the wrongs and fix 

the messes our species is making. While humans are in 

no way off the hook, a theocentric approach puts 

humans in our place and rejoices that the good of the 

world ultimately does not rest solely on our shoulders: 

 

In Genesis 9, we witness an agreement with God 

and his creation that is made specifically with 

people. It continues, however, to establish a direct 

relationship between God and his creation without 

reference to us... Later in the Old Testament we 

read that Job was asked, “Where were you when I 

laid the earth’s foundation?” We are at times a 

spectator in the vital relationship between God and 

his creation, and conscious of that, our work 

becomes worship. In giving others the opportunity 

to become aware of that dimension, our work goes 

on beyond worship to become witness (Harris 

2000, 119). 

 

Such a perspective empowers us to be faithful in 

the present without being obsessed with immediate 

results or trapped in desperation and despair. While 

our efforts do indeed seek the well-being of both people 

and the planet, they are ultimately offered as worship to 

the one holding all things together (Colossians 1:17). 

Sixth, theocentrism challenges us to reframe and 

renegotiate conflicts between the well-being of humans 

and the rest of creation from God’s perspective. Unlike 

anthropocentrism, theocentrism holds that perceived 

human interests do not ultimately determine what is 

right and good in a given situation (Gustafson 1994). 

The priority is to align with God’s will and purposes, 

which encompass the good of all creation: 

 

Human needs must be redefined beyond the utility 

satisfaction of simply self-interested desires. They 

must be seen instead in the light of God’s 

intentions, intentions that include respect for the 

nature He created [not just] for our benefit. And 

human actions must be oriented to the good of 

God’s creation. At the same time that they honor 

the good that is God’s creation of man [sic], they 

must honor the good that is God’s creation of 

nature. A theocentric view of man [sic] and nature 

thus subtends a morality of charity and 

conservation unlike those of the anthropocentric 

and ecocentric views of man [sic] and nature 

(Hoffman and Sandelands 2005, 155). 

 

From a biblical perspective, however, there should 

ultimately be no conflict between God’s will and what is 

in the actual interests of people (or the rest of creation, 

for that matter): 

 

If it is true, as just suggested, that honoring God’s 

command advances human well-being, then there 

should not be any tension between a theocentric 

and anthropocentric approach. As we honor our 

Creator God and obey God’s commands, we act in 

ways that advance human well-being… This works 

out, however, only if human well-being is properly 

understood (Gushee 2010, 249-250).  

 

Of course, the tragic reality of sinful humanity in a 

fallen world is that tension remains here, often because 

of narrow or misguided understandings of what human 

well-being entails. While theocentrism does not 

necessarily provide simple answers to these complex 

challenges, it does reframe the conflict more critically 

and holistically, and primes our commitment to strive 

for win-win solutions that promote the well-being of 

both people and the rest of creation (Lowe and Vena 

2019). As Hoffman and Sandelands (2005) note: 

 

Whereas anthropocentric and ecocentric 

environmentalisms invite controversy between 

these two objectives, theocentric environmentalism 

forswears their dichotomy and thereby controversy 

between them. It suggests, rather, that where the 

two objectives cannot be met at the same time, it is 

because they are misunderstood as being opposed 

to one another. The challenge thus is determining 

how and when this misunderstanding may arise 

(153-154). 

 

Tragic conflicts in the present are not the way God 

designed things to be but instead are properly 

understood as a consequence of sin and brokenness. 

The Bible testifies that God created, and remains 

determined to restore, a world defined by shalom, 

where humans and the rest of creation are reconciled 

to once again flourish in harmony with each other and 

God (Woodley 2012). 

Seventh, both theologically and practically 

speaking, to embrace a worldview other than 

theocentrism is to embrace idolatry: “Any position 

short of a full acceptance of theocentrism will not 

represent the completely biblical, patristic Christian 

worldview” (Rossi 1985, 14). On one hand, by 

centering humans above all other concerns, 

anthropocentrism idolizes humanity. This is precisely 

how humans went wrong in the Garden of Eden—

instead of submitting to God, they rebelled and sought 

to elevate themselves to rival God (Genesis 3). It is also 

how we have arrived in the Anthropocene, which is the 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 58 

inevitable outcome of an anthropocentric worldview. 

On the other hand, by centering the interests of non-

human creatures and ecosystems (at least as best we 

perceive them), biocentrism and ecocentrism tend to 

idealize and idolize (wild) non-human nature and are 

thus also problematic, if at least less self-aggrandizing. 

In the Western church, in particular, there is a great 

need to repent for our anthropocentric biases and to 

pursue biblical discipleship and witness that centers on 

God and orients ourselves, our species, and the rest of 

creation in right relationship around the Creator: 

 

It is not too much to say that to the extent 

Christians have failed to acknowledge God’s sacred 

relationship to other creatures and the creation, we 

have failed God, we have sinned against him and 

against other creatures and the creation we share 

with them. Our sins demand repentance, which 

includes both grief over sin and new commitment 

to a different way of relating. We must learn to 

perceive our moral obligations as God’s people to 

those other creatures loved and valued by God, 

and to the ecosystems that God prepared and still 

employs to sustain all our lives (Gushee 2010, 265). 

 

Application: Putting Theocentrism into 

Practice 
The purpose of this paper has been to propose 

theocentrism as a biblically normative and conceptually 

effective approach for reconciling conservation and 

development, which is an increasingly critical challenge 

in the world today. A growing number of faith-based 

organizations—including relief and development 

agencies, environmental groups, and even traditional 

mission societies—are engaging more holistically around 

interconnected social, ecological, and spiritual needs, 

and there is much that can be learned from these 

ongoing efforts (Table 4). Toward this end, we offer 

four concrete recommendations for how the relief and 

development community, in particular, can implement 

a more theocentric approach at the organizational and 

programmatic level. 

First, in an increasingly complex and 

interconnected world, it is important for organizations 

to take a rigorously holistic approach to understanding 

problems and crafting solutions. Systems thinking, 

which assumes complex human-environment 

interactions, should be normative along with connecting 

the dots between how socioeconomic and ecological 

(and, for faith-based organizations, also spiritual) issues 

and spheres interact and influence each other in 

specific places and contexts (Liu et al. 2007). These 

issues are inextricably entangled and, as Toly (2019) 

puts it, “Managing them well does not mean 

disentangling them, but wisely addressing their 

entanglement” (2).  For example, Plant with Purpose 

partners with rural households and communities 

around a comprehensive and integrated agenda that 

includes reforestation projects, sustainable agriculture 

practices, savings and loans groups, and discipleship 

programs. This holistic model has proven highly fruitful 

through the years because it appropriately recognizes 

that the challenges facing households and communities 

today are just as much about economic well-being as 

they are about ecological and spiritual health, which are 

all ultimately tied together. Another example is World 

Hope International, which explicitly connects all of 

their work to the Sustainable Development Goals 

(SDGs). While the SDGs have their limitations and are 

not theocentric per se, they do provide a useful and 

widely recognized framework for identifying 

connections and evaluating how any given project fits 

into the overarching goal of restoring creational 

flourishing. 

Second, the most feasible way for many 

organizations actually to implement such a holistic 

approach will be through innovative collaborations 

with groups that have complementary areas of 

expertise. Environmental conservation and 

international development are both specialized fields 

that require considerable understanding, skill, and 

networks in order to be effective. Relief and 

development agencies should be wary of assuming 

that they have what it takes to do conservation well on 

their own (and vice versa for conservation 

organizations). The literature is replete with 

examples of integrated conservation and 

development projects that were well-intentioned but 

failed due to deficient conception and 

implementation (e.g., Aldashev and Vallino 2019; 

Winkler 2011). One way for groups to increase the 

likelihood of success here is through strategic 

partnerships that complement gaps in expertise and 

relationships. A good example comes from the 

shores of Lake Tanganyika, a global biodiversity 

hotspot in East Africa. The Tuungane Project, a 

secular organization funded in part by The Nature 

Conservancy, is working to conserve Lake 

Tanganyika by improving fisheries co-management 

and protecting aquatic habitats (Lowe et al. 2019). At 

the same time, Tuungane recognizes the importance 

of improving food security and reducing soil erosion  

and sedimentation through addressing small-scale 

farming practices in the communities where they 

work. To do this, they partnered with ECHO (a 

Christian organization promoting sustainable 

agricultural development with a regional center in 

Tanzania) on a “Terrestrial Training Programme”  

 

 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 59 

Table 4: Select examples of Christian NGOs working to integrate conservation and development 

A Rocha: an international Christian conservation organization that seeks to show God’s love for all creation by 

conserving biodiversity while improving the well-being of local communities. Examples include remediating an 

urban dump into a biodiverse community park in England, and developing ecotourism projects in Kenya that 

generate revenue from protecting forests instead of cutting them down. arocha.org 

CAMA Services: a ministry of the Christian and Missionary Alliance; partnered with church leaders in Kosovo to 

start a plastics recycling business with the expressed vision of generating income while caring for creation by 

reducing trash in the community. They also support an aquaculture project in a part of Mali where farmers are 

struggling and the Niger River is being overfished. camaservices.org 

ECHO: teaches, innovates, and offers a wealth of resources on sustainable farming practices for small-scale farmers 

around the world. On the Tanzanian shoreline of Lake Tanganyika, they partnered with the Tuungane Project on 

an integrated conservation and development initiative focused on improving livelihoods and farming practices while 

protecting important fish habitat in this global biodiversity hotspot. echonet.org 

Plant with Purpose: models a rigorously holistic approach that seeks to address environmental degradation and rural 

poverty together through ecological restoration, sustainable agriculture, microfinance, and spiritual discipleship. In 

Haiti alone, they partner with almost 10,000 families across 133 communities to improve resilience, promote soil 

conservation, and plant trees—nearly 4 million to date. plantwithpurpose.org 

Tearfund: has been advocating for climate action since the early 1990s and also works to tackle waste and promote a 

circular economy. Their Rubbish Campaign (launched in 2019) focuses on urging major corporations to reduce 

their plastic waste in particular. In Malawi, they partner with Eagles Relief and Development Programme to integrate 

reforestation, conservation agriculture, and climate adaptation throughout their work with villages across the country. 

tearfund.org 

World Hope: explicitly ties its work around the world to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which 

includes climate action among other socio-ecological concerns. In Cambodia, they are the recipient of a grant from 

the Disney Conservation Fund for Jahoo Gibbon Camp, an ecotourism and research center that empowers the 

Indigenous Bunong people to protect the endangered yellow-cheeked gibbon and its habitat. worldhope.org 

World Vision International: includes climate change as an area of focus and recognizes the connections between a 

warming planet and increased poverty and vulnerability. As a result, among other initiatives, they have invested in 

reforestation projects and have helped restore millions of acres of degraded farmland across sub-Saharan Africa and 

parts of Asia. wvi.org 

 

 
for village farm plots (ECHO 2015). This successful 

collaboration not only highlights the value of 

partnerships between conservation-focused and 

development-focused organizations but also affirms 

that faith-based and secular groups can indeed find 

fruitful ways to work together around shared concerns. 

A helpful framework for thinking through such 

partnerships in a pluralistic world is what religion 

scholar Willis Jenkins terms “theocentric pragmatism,” 

which combines theocentrism with the grow-as-you-go, 

problem-solving approach of pragmatism (Jenkins 

2013). Theocentric pragmatism bypasses cosmological 

approaches that require all parties to share a single 

underlying worldview in order to collaborate. Instead, 

groups begin by bringing the best of their respective 

traditions/resources to bear in engaging around a 

shared problem with other stakeholders. In the process 

of working on the problem together, mutual learning 

and growing takes place, new possibilities develop, and 

groups are able to identify common ground and build 

the trust needed in order to innovate and pursue greater 

steps (Jenkins 2013). Theocentrism helps foster the 

humility needed to learn from others and engage in 

non-traditional and interdisciplinary partnerships and 

approaches to tackling entrenched problems, 

recognizing there may be limitations to our current 

strategies and abilities. 

A third aspect of practicing theocentrism is the 

importance of balancing the tension between the 

biblical vision of shalom with honest expectations of 

present realities. This involves naming and accepting 

the tragic reality that fully and finally reconciling 

conservation and development remains beyond our 

reach, though it must continue to be our aim. While 

considerable progress is possible (and should be 

gratefully celebrated whenever achieved), securing the 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 60 

complete flourishing of all creation is an ongoing 

struggle to do the best we can, given the circumstances 

we face. No matter how hard we try, we will continue to 

encounter intractable conflicts that force us to choose 

between competing non-trivial goods or goals, all of 

which are simultaneously unachievable (Toly 2019). In 

other words, we face wicked conflicts that have no fully 

self-justifying solutions. As moral agents and image-

bearers of God, however, we still have to make the most 

loving choices we can, even though it means ending up 

with dirt and blood on our hands (at least figuratively) 

from the unavoidable tradeoffs involved. From a 

Christian theocentric perspective, “Justification by the 

work of Jesus Christ, alone, not only frees the Christian 

from the demands of self-justification but also frees 

them for a pattern of vicarious representative action on 

behalf of others, frees them to be there for others” 

(Toly 2019, 94). In other words, while lamenting what 

is lost and hoping in the resurrection to come, 

Christians are not to be paralyzed in the present by so-

called “wicked problems” that defy clean solutions. 

Instead, we are empowered through the grace and 

example of Christ to sacrificially bear the costs 

associated with tragic tradeoffs so that others are better 

able to flourish: “A readiness to dirty our hands for 

others—to bear costs for neighbor and creation—

symbolizes… what it means to be like God at the dawn 

of a new, but enduringly tragic, geologic era” (Toly 

2019, 117). 

Fourth, pursuing a theocentric approach is also an 

opportunity to bear prophetic witness—both across 

broader society and within the church—against the 

pervasive and destructive cult of anthropocentrism. In 

reality, theocentrism runs counter to the ingrained 

operational worldview of many Christian spaces, which 

may pay lip service to the biblical vision of Jesus as 

Lord, but function predominately as if humans were the 

center of the universe. This tendency toward 

anthropocentrism runs particularly deep in 

Western/White Christianity and has been exported 

widely through its heavy emphasis on international 

missions and theological education (among other 

factors). In contrast, other, less individualistic and 

anthropocentric Christian traditions are often a rich 

source of theological insight and practical wisdom 

around theocentric conservation and development. 

These include Indigenous theological traditions (e.g., 

Woodley 2012) and the heavily Christian-influenced 

environmental justice movements in the U.S. and 

beyond (e.g., around Indigenous rights and 

deforestation in the Amazon region). Challenging the 

idolatry of anthropocentrism, which is a core and cross-

cutting issue of Christian discipleship, will often be 

costly and unpopular. Relief and development 

organizations rely on donations from individuals and 

institutions who tend to be much more motivated by 

anthropocentric appeals and arguments. For example, 

it is typically easier to raise support for child 

sponsorships than for ecosystem restoration. Still, 

biblical ethics and Anthropocene realities agree—we 

have to find a way to do both. Tearfund is an example 

of an organization providing leadership here through 

various public advocacy campaigns over the years and 

by supporting groundbreaking initiatives such as Young 

Evangelicals for Climate Action and the 

Lausanne/World Evangelical Alliance Creation Care 

Network. In 2013, they also teamed up with the 

Evangelical Environmental Network to bring a group of 

key Christian leaders in the United States to visit a 

partner organization in Malawi, the Eagles Relief and 

Development Programme, to learn why and how they 

are integrating conservation agriculture and climate 

resiliency into their work with rural communities. 

 

Conclusion: 
By providing courageous and persistent leadership 

in reconciling conservation and development, relief and 

development agencies have the opportunity to make 

significant and biblically faithful contributions toward 

reframing our deficient understanding of Christian 

mission and reorienting the church toward a more 

theocentric approach in an era defined by 

anthropogenic environmental change. They also have 

an opportunity to innovate and model conservation and 

development approaches that honor the God-given 

value of all creation and transcend the false dichotomies 

and shallow reconciliation attempts of many global 

solutions. 

As Van Dyke and Lamb (2020a) state, “we may yet 

give this present age a good name – not because we tried 

to save nature from people, nor that we merely labored 

to save nature for people, but that we worked to save 

nature through people and with people, that our efforts 

found dignity in this purpose, that human life and 

nature’s life might find and know life together” (122). 

Win-win solutions that conserve biodiversity and 

promote human well-being can be challenging to bring 

to fruition, and require holistic and honest accounting 

of benefits, losses, costs, and tradeoffs so that they can 

be openly discussed and negotiated (McShane et al. 

2011). 

If Christians are to faithfully participate in the 

biblical mission to restore all creation to mutual 

flourishing, we must reject exclusionary approaches to 

conservation and development and refuse to settle for 

half-hearted attempts at their reconciliation. Instead, we 

are called to unreservedly embrace God’s vision of 

shalom and joyfully accept our responsibilities as 

members of the community of creation and 

ambassadors of the Creator, Sustainer, and Reconciler 

of all. 
 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 61 

References 
 

Adams, William M., Ros Aveling, Dan Brockington, 

Barney Dickson, Jo Elliott, Jon Hutton, Dilys 

Roe, Bhaskar Vira, and William Wolmer. 2004. 

“Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of 

Poverty.” Science 306 (5699): 1146–49. 

doi:10.1126/science.1097920. 

Aldashev, Gani, and Elena Vallino. 2019. “The 

Dilemma of NGOs and Participatory Con-

servation.” World Development 123: 104615. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104615 

Anderson, Christopher B., Cristiana S. Seixas, Olga 

Barbosa, M. Siobhan Fennessy, Julio Díaz-José, 

and Bernal Herrera-F. 2019. “Determining 

Nature’s Contributions to Achieve the Sustainable 

Development Goals.” Sustainability Science 14 

(2): 543–47. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0643-5. 

Bauckham, Richard. 2010. Bible and Ecology: 

Rediscovering the Community of Creation. 

Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. 

Bhagwat, Shonil A., Nigel Dudley, and Stuart R. 

Harrop. 2011. “Religious Following in 

Biodiversity Hotspots: Challenges and 

Opportunities for Conservation and 

Development.” Conservation Letters 4 (3): 234–

40. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00169.x. 

Block, Daniel. 2010. “To Serve and To Keep: 

Toward a Biblical Understanding of Humanity’s 

Responsibility in the Face of the Biodiversity 

Crisis.” In Keeping God’s Earth: The Global 

Environment in Biblical Perspective, edited by 

Noah Toly and Daniel Block, 116-142. Downers 

Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 

Blom, Benjamin, Terry Sunderland, and Daniel 

Murdiyarso. 2010. “Getting REDD to Work 

Locally: Lessons Learned from Integrated 

Conservation and Development Projects.” 

Environmental Science & Policy 13 (2): 164–72. 

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.01.002. 

Büscher, Bram, and Robert Fletcher. 2019. “Towards 

Convivial Conservation.” Conservation and 

Society 17 (3): 283. doi:10.4103/cs.cs_19_75. 

Carruthers, David. 2001. “From Opposition To 

Orthodoxy: The Remaking Of Sustainable 

Development.” Journal of Third World Studies 

18 (2): 93–112. doi:10.2307/45193956 

Castree, Noel. 2008. “Neoliberalising Nature: 

Processes, Effects, and Evaluations.” 

Environment and Planning A: Economy and 

Space 40 (1): 153–73. doi:10.1068/a39100. 

Crutzen, Paul J. 2002. “Geology of Mankind--The 

Anthropocene.” Nature 415 (6867): 23–23. 

doi:10.1038/415023a. 

Deneulin, Séverine, and Augusto Zampini-Davies. 

2016. “How the Sustainable Development Goals 

(SDGs) can engage with religion.” Religion and 

the public Sphere (19 Oct 2016). Available from: 

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/76459/ 

Deneulin, Séverine, and Carole Rakodi. 2011. 

“Revisiting Religion: Development Studies Thirty 

Years On.” World Development 39 (1): 45-54. 

Dhyani, Shalini, Debbie Bartlett, Rakesh Kadaverugu, 

Rajarshi Dasgupta, Paras Pujari, and Parikshit 

Verma. 2020. “Integrated Climate Sensitive 

Restoration Framework for Transformative 

Changes to Sustainable Land Restoration.” 

Restoration Ecology n/a (n/a). Accessed 

September 20. doi:10.1111/rec.13230. 

Djupe, Paul A., and Patrick Kieran Hunt. 2009. 

“Beyond the Lynn White thesis: Congregational 

effects on environmental concern.” Journal for 

the Scientific Study of Religion 48 (4): 670-686. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01472.x 

Doherty, Tim S., Lucie M. Bland, Brett A. Bryan, 

Timothy Neale, Emily Nicholson, Euan G. 

Ritchie, and Don A. Driscoll. 2018. “Expanding 

the Role of Targets in Conservation Policy.” 

Trends in Ecology & Evolution 33 (11): 809–12. 

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2018.08.014. 

ECHO. 2015. 6
th

 Follow-up/Final Report of the 

Tuungane Terrestrial Training Programme 

(unpublished report), 22 June. 

Escobar, Arturo. 1992. “Reflections on 

‘Development’: Grassroots Approaches and 

Alternative Politics in the Third 

World.” Futures 24 (5): 411–36. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(92)90014-

7.Farley, Joshua, and Robert Costanza. 2010. 

“Payments for Ecosystem Services: From Local to 

Global.” Ecological Economics 69 (11). 

Amsterdam: Elsevier: 2060–68. 

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.010. 

Foley, Jonathan A., Ruth DeFries, Gregory P. Asner, 

Carol Barford, Gordon Bonan, Stephen R. 

Carpenter, F. Stuart Chapin, et al. 2005. “Global 

Consequences of Land Use.” Science 309 (5734): 

570–74. doi:10.1126/science.1111772. 

Foley, Jonathan A., Navin Ramankutty, Kate A. 

Brauman, Emily S. Cassidy, James S. Gerber, 

Matt Johnston, Nathaniel D. Mueller, et al. 2011. 

“Solutions for a Cultivated Planet.” Nature 478 

(7369): 337–42. doi:10.1038/nature10452. 

Grove, Richard. 1995. Green Imperialism: Colonial 

Expansion, Tropical Island Edens, and the 

Origins of Environmentalism, 1600-1860. Studies 

in Environment and History. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/cam026/93028654.

html. 

Gonzalez, Justo. 2015. La Creación: la Niña de los 

Ojos de Dios. Buenos Aires: Kairós. 

about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/cam026/93028654.html
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/cam026/93028654.html


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 62 

Gushee, David. 2010. “Environmental Ethics: Bringing 

Creation Care Down to Earth.” In Keeping God’s 

Earth: The Global Environment in Biblical 

Perspective, edited by Noah Toly and Daniel Block, 

245-266. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 

Gustafson, James M. 1981. Ethics from a Theocentric 

Perspective, I. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago 

Press. 

Gustafson, James M. 1994. A Sense of the Divine: 

The Natural Environment from a Theocentric 

Perspective. Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press. 

Harris, Peter. 2000. Under the Bright Wings. 

Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing. 

Hitzhusen, Gregory E. 2007. “Judeo‐Christian 

theology and the environment: moving beyond 

scepticism to new sources for environmental 

education in the United States.” Environmental 

Education Research 13 (1): 55-74. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620601122699 

Hoffman, Andrew J., and Lloyd E. Sandelands. 2005. 

“Getting Right with Nature: Anthropocentrism, 

Ecocentrism, and Theocentrism.” Organization 

& Environment, 18 (2): 141–162. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026605276197 

International Resource Panel (IRP). 2019. Land 

restoration for achieving the sustainable 

development goals: an international resource panel 

think piece. A think piece of the International 

Resource Panel, United Nations Environment 

Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 

https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/land-

restoration-achieving-sustainable-development-goals.   

Jack, B. Kelsey, Carolyn Kousky, and Katharine R. E. 

Sims. 2008. “Designing Payments for Ecosystem 

Services: Lessons from Previous Experience with 

Incentive-Based Mechanisms.” Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences 105 (28): 9465–70. 

doi:10.1073/pnas.0705503104. 

Jenkins, Willis. 2013. The Future of Ethics: 

Sustainability, Social Justice, and Religious 

Creativity. Georgetown University Press. 

Jenkins, Willis, Evan Berry, and Luke Beck Kreider. 

“Religion and climate change.” Annual review of 

environment and resources 43 (2018): 85-108. 

Kanagy, Conrad L., and Hart M. Nelsen. 1995. 

“Religion and Environmental Concern: 

Challenging the dominant assumptions.” Review 

of Religious Research: 33-45. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/3512069 

Kiss, A. 2004. “Is Community-Based Ecotourism a 

Good Use of Biodiversity Conservation Funds?” 

Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19 (5): 232–37. 

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.010 

Liu, Jianguo, Thomas Dietz, Stephen R Carpenter, 

Marina Alberti, Carl Folke, Emilio Moran, Alice 

N Pell, et al. 2007. “Complexity of Coupled 

Human and Natural Systems.” Science 317 

(5844): 1513–16. 

Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac, and 

Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford 

Univ. Press. 

Lewis, Simon L., and Mark A. Maslin. 2015. 

“Defining the Anthropocene.” Nature 519 (7542): 

171–80. doi:10.1038/nature14258. 

Lowe, Benjamin S. 2019. “Ethics in the 

Anthropocene: Moral Responses to the Climate 

Crisis.” Journal of Agricultural and 

Environmental Ethics 32 (3): 479–85. 

doi:10.1007/s10806-019-09786-z. 

Lowe, Benjamin S., and Christopher Vena. 2019. 

“Integrating Creation Care with Relief and 

Development.” In Hands: Stories and Lessons of 

Holistic Development, edited by CAMA Services, 

61-71. Colorado Springs, CO: CAMA Services. 

Lowe, Benjamin S., Susan K. Jacobson, Happiness 

Anold, Athanasio S. Mbonde, and Catherine M. 

O’Reilly. 2019. “Adapting to Change in Inland 

Fisheries:Analysis from Lake Tanganyika, East 

Africa.” Regional Environmental Change, 19 (6): 

1765-1776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-

01516-5 

Marvier, Michelle, Peter Kareiva, and Robert Lalasz. 

2019. Conservation in the Anthropocene: Beyond 

solitude and fragility. The Breakthrough Institute. 

Available at 

https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/issue-

2/conservation-in-the-anthropocene. Accessed 20 

Aug 2019. 

McShane, Thomas O., Paul D. Hirsch, Tran Chi 

Trung, Alexander N. Songorwa, Ann Kinzig, 

Bruno Monteferri, David Mutekanga, et al. 2011. 

“Hard Choices: Making Tradeoffs between 

Biodiversity Conservation and Human Well-

Being.” Biological Conservation 144 (3): 966–72. 

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038. 

Mikusiński, Grzegorz, Hugh P. Possingham, and 

Malgorzata Blicharska. 2014. “Biodiversity 

Priority Areas and Religions—a Global Analysis of 

Spatial Overlap.” Oryx, 48 (1): 17-22. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605312000993 

Moo, Douglas J., and Jonathan A. Moo. 2018. 

Creation Care: A Biblical Theology of the Natural 

World. Edited by Jonathan Lunde. Grand 

Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic. 

Newsham, Andrew, and Shonil Bhagwat. 2016. 

Conservation and Development. New York, NY: 

Routledge. 

Norton, Bryan G. 2017. “Environmental Ethics and 

Weak Anthropocentrism.” In The Ethics of the 

Environment, edited by R. Attfield, 333–50. 

London: Routledge. 

doi:10.4324/9781315239897-21. 

about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 63 

O’Connor, Martin and Rosemary Arnoux. 1993. 

“Translators’ introduction” In In the Wake of 

Affluent Society: An Exploration of Post-

Development, by Serge Latouche. London: Zed 

Books. 

Ortega-Álvarez, Rubén, and Rafael Calderón-Parra. 

2020. “Linking Biological Monitoring and 

Wildlife Ecotourism: A Call for Development of 

Comprehensive Community-Based Projects in 

Search of Sustainability.” Environment, 

Development and Sustainability, May. 

doi:10.1007/s10668-020-00761-7. 

Ridder, Ben. 2007. “The Naturalness versus Wildness 

Debate: Ambiguity, Inconsistency, and 

Unattainable Objectivity.” Restoration Ecology 15 

(1): 8–12. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2006.00184.x. 

Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa 

Persson, F. Stuart Chapin, Eric F. Lambin, 

Timothy M. Lenton, et al. 2009. “A Safe 

Operating Space for Humanity.” Nature 461 

(7263): 472–75. doi:10.1038/461472a. 

Rolston III, Holmes. 1996. “The Bible and 

Ecology.” Interpretation 50 (1): 16-26. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/002096439605000103 

Rossi, Vincent R. 1988. “Theocentrism: The 

Cornerstone of Christian Ecology.” Epiphany: A 

Journal of Faith and Insight 8: 8-13. 

Sachs, Wolfgang. 2010. The Development 

Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge As Power, 

2nd ed. London: Zed Books. 

Simkins, Ronald A. 2014. “The Bible and 

Anthropocentrism: Putting Humans in Their 

Place. Dialectical Anthropology 38, (4): 397-413. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-014-9348-z 

Siipi, Helena. 2008. “Dimensions of Naturalness.” 

Ethics and the Environment 13 (1). Indiana 

University Press: 71–103. 

https://doi.org/10.2979/ETE.2008.13.1.71 

Slimbach, Richard. 2020. “Global Development in the 

Anthropocene,” Christian Relief, Development, 

and Advocacy 1 (2): 70-82. 

Smith, Amy Erica, and Robin Globus Veldman. 2020. 

“Evangelical Environmentalists? Evidence from 

Brazil.” Journal for the Scientific Study of 

Religion 59 (2): 341-359. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12656 

Snyder, Howard. 2014 “Genesis 9: The Forgotten 

Covenant.” Ecology of Church and Kingdom 

(blog). Seedbed (January 13). Retrieved from 

https://www.seedbed.com/genesis-9-the-forgotten-

covenant/  

Steffen, Will, Jacques Grinevald, Paul Crutzen, and 

John McNeill. 2011. “The Anthropocene: 

Conceptual and Historical Perspectives.” 

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 

A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering 

Sciences 369, (1938): 842-867. 

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0327. 

Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell S E, 

Fetzer I, Bennett E M, Biggs R, Carpenter S R, 

Vries W de, Wit C A de, Folke C, Gerten D, 

Heinke J, Mace G M, Persson L M, Ramanathan 

V, Reyers B and Sörlin S. 2015. “Planetary 

Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a 

Changing Planet.” Science 347 Online: 

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1

259855 

Stone, Christopher D. 2004. “Common but 

Differentiated Responsibilities in International 

Law.” The American Journal of International 

Law 98 (2): 276–301. doi:10.2307/3176729. 

Taylor, Paul W. 1986. Respect for Nature: A Theory 

of Environmental Ethics. Princeton, N.J.: 

Princeton University Press. 

Tilman, David, Kenneth G. Cassman, Pamela A. 

Matson, Rosamond Naylor, and Stephen Polasky. 

2002. “Agricultural Sustainability and Intensive 

Production Practices.” Nature 418 (6898): 671–

77. doi:10.1038/nature01014. 

Toly, Noah J. 2019. The Gardener’s Dirty Hands: 

Environmental Politics and Christian Ethics. New 

York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190249427.001.

0001 

Tomalin, Emma, ed. 2015. The Routledge 

Handbook of Religions and Global 

Development. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 

Tomalin, Emma, Jörg Haustein, and Shabaana Kidy. 

2019. “Religion and the Sustainable Development 

Goals.” The Review of Faith & International 

Affairs 17 (2): 102-118. 

UNEP. 2020. “Faith Action on the UN Sustainable 

Development Goals.” Policy and Programme 

Division, United Nations Environment 

Programme. Available from: 

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11822/33848. 

Van Dyke, Fred. 2005. “Between Heaven and Earth: 

Evangelical Engagement in Conservation.” 

Conservation Biology 19 (6): 1693-1696. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00311.x 

Van Dyke, Fred, and Rachel L. Lamb. 2020a. “The 

Anthropocene: Conservation in a Human-

Dominated Nature.” In Conservation Biology: 

Foundations, Concepts, Applications, 81–124. 

Cham: Springer International Publishing. 

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39534-6_3. 

———. 2020b. “The Legal Foundations of Conservation 

Biology.” In Conservation Biology: Foundations, 

Concepts, Applications, 489–530. Cham: 

Springer International Publishing. 

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39534-6_12. 

about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(2), Winter 2021  

Lowe, Lamb, Padilla-DeBorst, Reconciling Conservation and Development … 64 

———. 2020c. “Biodiversity Conservation and Climate 

Change.” In Conservation Biology: Foundations, 

Concepts, Applications, 125–70. Cham: Springer 

International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-

39534-6_4. 

———. 2020d. “Conservation Economics and 

Sustainable Development.” In Conservation 

Biology: Foundations, Concepts, Applications, 

edited by Fred Van Dyke and Rachel L. Lamb, 

449–87. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39534-6_11. 

van Velden, Julia L., Henry Travers, Boyson H.Z. 

Moyo, and Duan Biggs. 2020. “Using Scenarios 

to Understand Community-Based Interventions 

for Bushmeat Hunting and Consumption in 

African Savannas.” Biological Conservation 248 

(August): 108676. 

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108676. 

Vitousek, Peter M., John D. Aber, Robert W. 

Howarth, Gene E. Likens, Pamela A. Matson, 

David W. Schindler, William H. Schlesinger, and 

David G. Tilman. 1997. “Human Alteration of 

the Global Nitrogen Cycle: Sources and 

Consequences.” Ecological Applications 7 (3): 

737–50. 

doi:10.1890/10510761(1997)007[0737:HAOTG

N]2.0.CO;2. 

Waltham, Nathan J., Michael Elliott, Shing Yip Lee, 

Catherine Lovelock, Carlos M. Duarte, Christina 

Buelow, Charles Simenstad et al. “UN Decade on 

Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030—What Chance 

for Success in Restoring Coastal Eco-

systems?” Frontiers in Marine Science 7 (2020): 71. 

White Jr., Lynn. 1967. “The Historical Roots of Our 

Ecologic Crisis. Science 155 (3767): 1203-1207. 

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.155.3767.1203 

Wilkinson, Katharine K. 2012. Between God and 

Green: How Evangelicals are Cultivating a Middle 

Ground on Climate Change. Oxford: Oxford 

University Press. 

Wilson, E.O. 2016a. Half-Earth – Our Planet’s Fight 

for Life. New York: Norton. 

Winkler, Ralph. 2011. “Why do ICDPs Fail?: The 

Relationship Between Agriculture, Hunting and 

Ecotourism in Wildlife Conservation.” Resource 

and Energy Economics 33 (1): 55-78. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.01.003 

Woodley, Randy. 2012. Shalom and the Community 

of Creation: An Indigenous Vision. Grand 

Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. 

Wright, Christopher J. H. 2010. The Mission of 

God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the 

Church’s Mission. Illustrated Edition. Grand 

Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic. 

Young, Richard A. 1994. Healing the Earth: a 

Theocentric Perspective on Environmental 

Problems and Their Solutions. Nashville, TN: 

Broadman & Holman Publishers. 
 

 

Benjamin Lowe is a PhD Candidate, NSF Graduate 

Research Fellow, and Harvey Fellow studying tropical 

conservation and development at the University of 

Florida. His interdisciplinary research focuses on the 

human, religious, and ethical dimensions of global 

environmental change. www.benlowe.net. 

 

Author email: ben.s.lowe@gmail.com  

 

Rachel Lamb is a PhD Candidate in Geographical 

Sciences, Harvey Fellow, and University Flagship 

Fellow at the University of Maryland, College Park. 

Her recent work focuses on strategic reforestation to 

meet climate mitigation and other social and 

environmental goals. 

 

Author email: rachel_lamb@icloud.com  

 

Ruth Padilla DeBorst is a theologian, missiologist, 

educator, and storyteller. She serves with Resonate 

Global Mission, leading the Comunidad de Estudios 

Teológicos Interdisciplinarios (CETI), the 

International Fellowship for Mission as 

Transformation, and leadership development 

initiatives of the Christian Reformed Church. She has 

been involved in theological formation for integral 

mission in her native Latin America and beyond for 

several decades.  

 

Author email: rpadilladeborst@gmail.com 
 

about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank

