Theology and Reading
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 52, No. 2 – Spring 2010
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By J. Matthew Sleeth, MD. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. 255 pages. Softcover, $14.99.
In Serve God, Save the Planet: A Christian Call to Action, former chief of medical staff and Emergency Room physician Matthew Sleeth calls on evangelicals to recognize a spiritual problem with an environmental impact, aiming for change at an individual and family level. The book is not concerned with governmental policy, and so avoids technical economic and public policy debates that tire a casual reader. Sleeth’s concern is that in a self-centered society, people are seeking happiness in possessions rather than God, resulting in a lifestyle that is contrary to God’s intent (61) and has a negative impact on the environment.
Sleeth establishes his basic premise in chapters 1–5 and then applies it to a wide range of topics: purchasing decisions, work and rest, television, parenting, diet, housing, Christmas, energy consumption, medical care, and population growth. The book ends with a chapter on the unselfish love of God, which motivates Christians to reflect that love in actions towards creation. Throughout, Sleeth maintains a practical focus, including several appendices that provide suggestions for lowering energy use and abandoning a consumerist lifestyle. Even so, the author is humble and avoids legalistic judgments about how much is too much (82). Sleeth demonstrates an engaging, self-deprecating sense of humor, which he employs to tell stories of his failures as well as his family’s successes in living the lifestyle he is advocating.
The book reads like a neighborly—if sometimes passionate—conversation, and is aimed at a lay-audience. This, perhaps, explains the absence of source citations for the important statistical and scientific claims the book makes. Unfortunately, this deficiency leaves the reader unable to easily evaluate some of the author’s key claims. Critical areas of disagreement in environmental science, such as humanity’s role in global warming, are treated as already-settled issues.
Serve God, Save the Planet’s rejection of crass consumerism as spiritually harmful is unquestionably sound. In addition, the doctrine of salvation implied in the book properly presumes that creation will be liberated as the children of God are freed from sin (cf. Rom 8:19–21), reflecting Sleeth’s affirmation of the priority of humanity over non-human creation implied by the imago Dei (36). However, the book does suffer from serious problems that weaken its impact significantly and distract from the author’s core assault on materialism.
The most important area for improvement lies with the book’s use of Scripture, as Sleeth is sometimes guilty of prooftexting. For instance, in chapter 3, the author attacks those who think that wealth is a sufficient defense against death. He quotes Proverbs 18:11–12 (“the rich think of their wealth as an impregnable defense” NLT) to attack those who buy SUV’s because of their superior performance in crash-safety tests (39–40). Scripture does condemn those who trust wealth instead of God as a defense against calamity. It does not however, condemn prudential decisions designed to enhance safety or security under the providence of God. Otherwise, the exhortation in Proverbs 27:12 to foresee danger and take precautions would be unintelligible. This is an example of Sleeth’s failure to read Scripture in light of other relevant passages. Again, the author takes Psalm 24:1 (“the earth is the Lord’s”) to mean that “human ownership is an illusion” (37). Here he fails to consider Psalm 115:16, “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth He has given to the sons of men,” and the eighth commandment, “You shall not steal.” Together, these passages suggest that humans can indeed own property, but that their property rights are limited by the superior claim of the Creator.
A second area in which the book could be strengthened would be the correction of flawed argumentation. In chapter 4, Sleeth identifies depression as a symptom of society’s spiritual crisis. To convey the extent of the crisis, the author relates an experiment that he has conducted “hundreds of times” over 15 years (57–58), asking people the following question: if you could go “anywhere in time you choose” (57), where would you go? Only three answered “the future” (58). Sleeth reasons that since one symptom of depression is disinterest in the future, and since most people in his survey did not choose the future, then his informal survey “points to a society-wide pessimism about our future” (59). This conclusion is unwarranted. First, it wrongly assumes that the only reason people choose the past is because they are depressed and thus expect the future to be bleak. Secondly, drawing a society-wide conclusion after only a few hundred interviews seems to violate the author’s own preference for large group studies to draw conclusions (88–89).
Another area of flawed argumentation takes place in chapter 14 where the author attacks the Roman Catholic “natural law” argument against birth control. Sleeth seems to think that “natural law” means something like “whatever would occur naturally,” so that the Vatican inconsistently rejects birth control while affirming life-saving medical care (187). Yet, “natural law” refers to the ethical norms that derive from the purpose (telos) of a thing or act. If the natural purpose of sex is procreation, then birth control frustrates that goal, and thus violates the ethical norms implied by the act. While this argument only works if the sole goal of sex is procreation, a correct understanding of the argument requires a more sophisticated response than Sleeth supplies; he has, in effect, defeated a straw man.
Sleeth’s distrust of technological innovation, while not without merit, is too simplistic. The author rejects a blind faith in technology by noting that not all of the results of technology have been beneficial (44). Still, Sleeth seems to see technology more as a cause of human problems than as part of the solution to them. This leads him to long for “the life our grandparents led” (16), and “life a generation ago” (169). While life in the early 1900’s may seem less complicated, life expectancy in the US was less than half what it is today and infant mortality rates were many times greater. Much of this progress was the result of technology, which improved the environmental conditions of cities.
The author also rejects modern laborsaving devices in favor of the labor of a monastic life (92–93). Sleeth notes that labor that does not require one’s full attention can allow time for meditation and prayer (93). Yet so can devices that free up time from labor altogether! Here, Sleeth simply needs to apply the reasoning he uses about money saved by eliminating unnecessary expenses. Just as such money is better used to minister to others than to feed selfish desires, time freed by labor saving devices can be better used in spiritual pursuits rather than in the pursuit of more stuff.
A deeper appreciation for the value of human life would enrich Sleeth’s discussion of fertility rates and population growth in chapter 15. Sleeth is certainly careful to affirm the sanctity of human life and rejects abortion as birth control (186). But rather than simply accepting Paul Ehrlich’s neo-Malthusian predictions of disastrous population explosion (185), the chapter would benefit from consideration of the benefits of growing populations to actually create more and greater resources through discovery and innovation, and from awareness that many demographers now expect population to peak around the middle of this century and then begin a long-term decline.The doctrine of the imago dei and the responsibility of dominion (Gen 1:28) imply that humans are not merely conservators, but also producers. Adam was not merely to tend the garden; he was to expand its borders. This undercuts Sleeth’s non-interventionist perspective on nature (16, 66), and suggests that human responsibility goes beyond preserving pristine nature to enhancing its beauty, productiveness, and benefit to humanity.
Matthew Sleeth has written a book that communicates its message effectively. His focus on practical personal action is helpful and motivational. While addressing the problems noted above would not change the core assertion of the spiritual bankruptcy of materialistic consumerism, it would strengthen the author’s presentation, refine the viewpoints expressed, and open up new horizons for the reader. Instead of being challenged to merely conserve limited resources, readers could be motivated to abandon selfishness for the kind of productive service to God, humanity, and the planet that refines the beauty of creation and expands its resources for the benefit of all humanity.
