Willing the Good of Creation

Willing the Good of Creation

Consider something with me. As Christians, what should our inclination be toward living things? Toward other people, toward plants and animals? If you or I were to survey our own communities, the answers would likely vary widely. I can imagine someone saying, “Inclined to plants?! Are you serious?!” I would like to suggest that we should be inclined toward all living things—plants, animals, and other people, present and future—and that the reason for this inclination is that it is the biblical position.

How do I come to the conclusion that we have a duty to be inclined toward all living things? First, we must understand the philosophical account from which this position is derived, and then we will compare that account with Holy Scripture to see whether it still stands.

A Philosophical Account

The thirteenth-century Christian theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas made a profound case for an actionable definition of love and friendship. In his treatise Summa Theologiae (I–II, 26.4), Aquinas proclaims, “Amor est velle bonum alicui.” In English: “To love is to will the good of the other.” Aquinas is likely placing a Christian inflection on Aristotle’s definition of friendship found in the Nicomachean Ethics (Book VIII.2), where Aristotle describes friendship as wishing good things to another for that person’s sake. Both Aristotle and Aquinas offer these definitions as characterizing the virtuous life. They are therefore telling us that the virtuous person is one who loves others, and that love is the act of willing or wishing good for another person.

Returning to the thirteenth century, Aquinas later refines his definition of love by adding a small but significant clause. True love is willing the good of the other for the other’s own sake. Why is the inclusion of this clause so important for the definition of love and friendship? It rules out any form of instrumental or selfish love that objectifies the other. For example, I am not willing your good for my own sake. Put another way, I am not willing good for you because I hope to gain something from that goodness. True love does not help a lonely elderly woman with her lawn care in the hope that she will write me into her will. Aquinas is explaining that love is a gift of self to another: no strings attached.

This is the truest form of charity, and we can say that this is what God demonstrated to us by sending his Son, Jesus, to set us free from the bondage of sin and to make a way for healing and eternal life (see John 3:16–18). God wills our good for our sake, and this willing is demonstrated through action.

It is important to note that both Aristotle and Aquinas were speaking of a deep, inward desire when they used the words “to wish” or “to will.” This desire is more than a fleeting hope or wishful thinking; it is desire accompanied by action. For example, it is not merely hoping that your friend finds a job. It is actively assisting them in finding one—somehow contributing to the process. Again, this is done solely for your friend’s sake, not your own, because you truly love your friend.

The Great Commandment

Thomas Aquinas was willing to adopt and modify Aristotle’s definition of love because it so closely resembled the Christian ethic established in Christ’s teaching and later exemplified in his death and resurrection. When Jesus was asked which of God’s laws was the greatest commandment, he replied by quoting from Deuteronomy and Leviticus: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:28–34).

Notice how closely “loving your neighbor as yourself” mirrors “willing the good of the other for the other’s own sake.” Most people, I assume, would want to be loved as a gift with no strings attached, rather than with a love that is conditional or demanding. It is biblical to love our neighbor with the same kind of love we desire for ourselves; a love that hopes for our good for our own sake.

This brings us back to our original question: what should our inclination be toward living things? Our inclination should be to will the good of the other—plants, animals, and other people—for the other’s own sake. This is a challenging proposition because our world typically does not operate in this way. The inclination offered by the world is often conditional or demands something in return. The world offers a love grounded in utility. God calls us to a superior love.

For example, many people love the outdoors because it offers beauty or recreational enjoyment. They may even fight to preserve aspects of nature, but their advocacy is ultimately about themselves, because it is a fight for the utility nature provides to them. Is this fundamentally different from a mineral tycoon who values a piece of land solely for the resources it can yield? In both cases, the individual places himself above the environment, and the environment’s role is reduced to meeting human needs and desires. A close reading of Holy Scripture, however, challenges this perspective.

Who Is My Neighbor?

Are others—whether people, plants, or animals—our neighbors? The creation narrative in Genesis seems to suggest that they are. In the Genesis account, God culminates each day of creation by declaring that what he has made is “good.” Framed another way, the narrative shows that God wills the good of his creation for its own sake. God then creates humankind as his capstone creative act. Humanity is not set above creation, but exists as a part of it, in an interdependent relationship. In the truest sense, humanity is the neighbor to the rest of creation, to plants and animals.

Humankind is placed in close proximity to the rest of creation and given dominion over it (Genesis 1:26–28). Being made in God’s image, humanity is invited into God’s creative and sustaining work. “The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it” (Genesis 2:15, NET). Dominion has often been misunderstood as permission to value plants and animals only according to their utility. Yet, as we have seen, dominion must be understood through God’s perspective. God’s dominion flows from his very nature of love—a love that wills the good of the other for the other’s sake.

Humankind must therefore understand its relational dominion over creation in a similar way, rather than through a domineering, human-centered lens that so often shapes our relationships with one another and with the rest of creation. We are called to will the good of God’s creation for its own sake as we “care for it and maintain it.” This is an active willing, not a passive hope.

So we return, once more, to the original question: what should our inclination be toward living things—plants, animals, and people? Our inclination should be to will the good of the other—plants, animals, and other people—for the other’s own sake. This is the will and intent of God, and it is the fulfillment of humankind’s vocational calling as neighbor.