Perspective on Agapeic Ethic and Creation Care

Abstract

Ongoing discussions on creation care and agapeic ethic have paid less attention to the interplay between love, creation, waste management challenges, and mission. This paper, therefore, discusses a missional perspective of agapeic ethic as a ground norm for eco-theology and motivation for eco-care (especially proper waste management). An attempt is made to discuss the concept and dimensions of love and the nexus between love, creation, and missional purpose. This paper adopts a non-participant observation of refuse collection as carried out by refuse collectors, the waste disposal practices of people, and the waste handling and disposal practices of selected churches. This research was conducted across Port Harcourt City, Obio Akpor, Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni, Oyibo, and Eleme municipal areas of Rivers State, Nigeria. The churches observed include Protestant Churches (Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Church of Nigeria that is Anglican Communion, and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints); the Roman Catholic Church; Pentecostal Churches (such as Salvation Ministries Worldwide, Redeemed Christian Church of God, and Deeper Life Bible Church); and African Indigenous Churches (namely, the Christ Apostolic Church, Cherubim and Seraphim, and Celestial Church of Christ). The information gathered was critically analysed and used in measuring stakeholders’ disposition to and understanding of the research focus. Ecological liberation hermeneutics was adopted as an interpretative framework, while the eco-justice principles of interconnectedness and purpose were engaged to foreground the underlying issues in this study. This paper argued that Christians’ involvement in proper waste management, keeping both private and public spaces clean, is a morally and divinely imposed duty and a practical testimonial of their love for God, their fellow human beings, and non-human others. This is a fulfilment of the mission where Christian love (agape) serves as an ethical principle of inflicting ‘no harm’ to humans or non-human others.

1. Introduction

Throughout history, love has been one of the themes of poets, preachers, sages, lovers, artists, sculptors, philosophers, and songwriters. They claim that love is the greatest thing—the indisputable queen of all virtues (Brown 1998). The English word ‘love’, which is a derivative of the German forms of the Sanskrit ‘lubh’ (desire), is broadly defined and, hence, imprecise. This has equally generated the first-order problems of definition and meaning, which are resolved, to some extent, by reference to the following Greek terms: eros, philia, and agape. Eros (Greek erasthai) is used to refer to the part of love that constitutes a passionate, intense desire for something. It is often referred to as sexual desire, hence the modern notion of ‘erotic’ (Greek erotikos).

The Jewish scholars that were charged with translating the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek (Septuagint) employed the word agape to describe the Hebrew word for love—’ahab. This may be due to the fact that ’aheb had a volitional or choice element that was lacking in the other Greek words for love. It appears that human language seems unable to capture the biblical idea of love. Perhaps the difficulty in appropriately describing the biblical idea of love arises from the fact that it has been so little lived; thus, it has never been assigned a name (Robertson 1995). Although philia and agape occur with considerable frequency in the New Testament, the goal in this paper is to explore the concept of agape in eco-theology. As James Nash has rightly noted, if love is the integrating centre of the whole of Christian faith and ethics, then a Christian ecological ethics is seriously deficient—if at all conceivable—unless it is grounded in Christian love (Nash 1991).

Apart from the Christian teaching on love and creation, in Judaism, the concept of Tikkun Olam (repairing the world) reflects a similar understanding of creation as a manifestation of divine love that calls for human responsibility in maintaining the world’s balance and health. The Jewish view emphasises a partnership between God and humanity in caring for the earth, which is seen as a sacred duty (Borowitz 1991). Islamic tradition also highlights the connection between divine creation, love, and environmental sustainability. The Qur’an frequently refers to the natural world as signs (ayah) of God’s existence and wisdom, which humans are called to respect and protect. The Prophet Muhammad emphasised the moderation and avoidance of waste, underscoring that environmental care is an expression of gratitude for God’s gifts (Nasr 1996).

2. Materials and Methods

This paper adopts a non-participant observation of refuse collection as carried out by refuse collectors, the waste disposal practices of people, and the waste handling and disposal practices of selected churches. This research was conducted across Port Harcourt City, Obio Akpor, Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni, Oyibo, and the Eleme municipal areas of Rivers State, Nigeria. The churches observed include the following: Protestant Churches (Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Church of Nigeria that is Anglican Communion, and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints); the Roman Catholic Church; Pentecostal Churches (such as Salvation Ministries Worldwide, Redeemed Christian Church of God, and Deeper Life Bible Church); and African Indigenous Churches (namely, Christ Apostolic Church, Cherubim and Seraphim, and Celestial Church of Christ). The information gathered was critically analysed and used in measuring stakeholders’ disposition to and understanding of the research focus. This study employed ecological liberation hermeneutics as an interpretative framework, whereas the ecological principles of interconnectedness and purpose were engaged to foreground issues.

2.1. Ecological Liberation Hermeneutics

Liberation theologians draw from scriptures, certain insights, and inspirations for the good will of the marginalised in society. In other words, liberation theologians and ecologists, in addressing an ecological crisis, underscore, among other things, the ethical and social dimensions of the crisis and strive to harness the ecological wisdom in biblical traditions as a tool to address the ecological crisis. In this manner, liberation theologians like Leonardo Boff attempt to establish a nexus between the cry of the oppressed and the cry of the earth, thus recognising that humanity is part of the intricate web of life and that human beings are its custodians. Going forward, Boff (2014) widens the option for the poor to include the environment and contends that spirituality embodies an attitude which places life at the centre and defends and promotes life against reductionism and death in all its forms. Nogueira-Godsey (2013) sees liberation not only as a commitment to ending economic poverty but also as something that should include restoring gender and social relations, as well as ending ecological degradation. The various scholarly attempts by liberation theologians in locating the ecological question within the framework of the poor exemplifies the mutual interactions between social systems and ecological systems and the inseparability of social justice and injustice from ecological justice and injustice (Gebara 1999). As Ferguson observes, there is a need for justice to be extended to nature as justice should address fairness among and between humans as well as all other components of creation (Ferguson 2016).

In the book Trinity and Society, Leonardo Boff (1988) explores the Christian doctrine of the Trinity from a social and theological perspective. Boff, a prominent liberation theologian, uses the concept of the Trinity to critique social structures and propose a more just and participatory society. The key themes he addressed are Trinitology and the concepts of unity and participation. His approach to Trinitology emphasised the relational and communal aspects of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as a dynamic community of love, equality, and mutual participation. He moves away from a purely metaphysical or abstract understanding of the Trinity and views it as a model for human relationships and societal organisation and order. The Trinity, in Boff’s view, represents a paradigm for how human beings can live in communion, maintaining both diversity and unity. He suggests that the unity within the Trinity is not a static oneness but a dynamic unity in diversity, recognising that the three persons of the Trinity are distinct, yet inter-related, forming a unity that does not erase individual identities but affirms them in their interconnectedness. For Boff, this Trinitarian unity serves as a model for societal organisation: a unity that respects and embraces diversity rather than enforcing uniformity. He argues that human societies should reflect this model, where differences are not merely tolerated but are integral to the formation of a unified and harmonious community.

Boff links the concept of participation directly to the Trinitarian model, where each person of the Trinity fully participates in the divine life and mission without hierarchy or domination. He extends this idea to the human realm, advocating for a society based on mutual participation, where all individuals are active contributors to the common good. This participation does not simply entail political or social involvement but is deeply rooted in a spiritual understanding of interconnectedness and communal life. Boff argues that such a participatory model of the society counteracts social injustice, inequality, and oppression, as it reflects the equality and reciprocity found within the Trinity. For Boff, the Trinity is not just a theological concept but a model for creating a more equitable and participatory world, where human communities reflect the divine community’s life-giving, nature inclusive.

Boff’s position resonates with the thesis of this paper that both human and non-human others share in the divine creationism. They are interconnected by a common origin and experience in which both humans and nature are oppressed and share the common hope of redemption (Rom 8:19–22). However, humans are supposed to participate in the mission of redemption by respecting the intrinsic value and worth of nature, treating it the way the Creator (the trinity) treats humans and desires that humanity treat others, including the nonhuman others. By virtue of creation, humans bear the (moral) image of God. One of the expressions of this moral image of God is ‘love’, which is a communicable attribute of God. By communicable attributes, we mean shared attributes of God. The Trinitarian mission to redeem the world from the ruin of sin is fundamentally motivated by love and humanity’s participation in this redemptive mission is better expressed through treating nature with compassion and healing.

2.2. The Eco-Justice Principles of Interconnectedness and Purpose

In the words of Norman Habel, the interconnectedness of beings is the beginning of the growing understanding that the earth is not a controlled or mechanical system made up of separate pieces governed by the laws of nature, but a community of interconnected living things, mutually dependent on each other. Biblically, the formation of the first human being (Adam) from the soil (adamah), as recorded in Genesis 2:7, shows the great interconnectivity between man and the land (Habel 2016). Accordingly, various cultures in Africa have expressed how interconnected humans, other inhabitants of the earth, and the earth itself are (Habel 2016). The growth of the tree is a constant reminder that the child has a place in that home and serves as a reminder of the interconnectedness of the child and the environment. Additionally, Bauckham (2016) holds that ‘this earthiness of humans signifies a kinship with the earth itself and other earthly creatures such as plants and animals. Human life is embedded in the physical world, with all the implications of dependence on the natural systems of life.’

Nevertheless, Berman et al. (2021), echo that humans are facing a ‘New Ecological crisis’, thereby personalising and humanising earth. The argument is in line with the view of this study that the unsanitary management of waste births negative outcomes on the environment and human health. This implies that the land decries the injustice on it. It therefore follows that humans are summoned to hear the ‘groaning, voicing, and gnashing of the teeth’ by the earth as a result of their own behaviour. Thus, the earth hears and feels the effects on itself. The land bears the injustice committed by the people. The foregoing, therefore, diminishes the Christian ethical teaching on love for God, the neighbour (the environment), and the self. The principle of purpose states that ‘the universe, earth and all its components are part of a dynamic cosmic design within which each piece has a place in the overall goal of that design’ (Josiah and Jeffrey-Ebhomenmen 2023).

Such a dynamic cosmic design, especially in the context of mission as treated in a study by Josiah and Onyezonwu (2014), emphasises the philosophy that ‘cleanliness is next to godliness.’ In this study, it is discovered that some Christians within the selected churches are involved in periodic community service, cleared the blocked gutters, and filled pot holes specifically, in accordance with the regulation of the Rivers State Environmental Sanitation Authority (RSESA). The study further revealed that the gospel commission encapsulates healing, noting that one of the ways of becoming healed is through the care of the environment where people live and work. It asserts that, when people are sick and they spend their scarce resources on treatment, they will likely contribute less to the evangelism funds of the church and this adversely affects mission. This underscores the relevance of the eco-justice principles of interconnectedness and purpose to the discourse on the intersections of agapeic ethic, waste management practices, and creation care. The next section discusses the twin concepts of love and ethics.

3. Conceptual Discourse on Ethics and Love

‘Ethics’ denote rules for human behaviour. The rules are meant for individual or group conduct, or both. According to Josiah and Akpuh (2022), ethics imply human efforts to create and establish principles for right living. They further recognised ethics as an embodiment of moral codes for acceptable conducts in the society. On the other hand, ‘love’ is a noun that may mean a specific kind of feeling. It is also a verb that emphasises how persons should behave. The internal aspects of love focus on emotion, disposition, and motive. The external aspect is concerned with volition, choices, actions, and ways of life (Robertson 1995). The study takes notice of the view of Kenneth Cauthen, having taken cognisance of the many interpretations of agape and the lack of consensus.

This work agrees with Cauthen’s proposition that agape should be thought of as mutual love that regards the self and the neighbour as equals in a community of equals, with equal rights, opportunities, responsibilities and privileges. One who practises agape will sacrifice for the needs of the neighbour when the need of the neighbour is more than his own or when the larger good of the community requires it. In the same manner, he will suitably frown at any violation of the legitimate needs, claims, and interests of oneself. Once more, while ethics simply provide guidelines for specific achievements, without mandating the subjects to comply, agapeic love is an unconditional mutual love which is independent of the response of the neighbour (Matt 5:43–48). In the event that the neighbour reacts with hostility, indifference, or in a self-seeking way, agape continues to seek equality, mutuality, and reciprocity. However, unconditional mutual love embodies an element of justice for oneself as well as for others.

The moral ideal it seeks is that each person shall have the best life possible within the constraints posed by mutual self-realisation. A just and good society is one that strives to maximise the freedom, well-being, and equality of all citizens in tandem with the correct-limits each imposes on the others. An ‘agapeic’ community then is one where all persons are treated as equal in worth and entitled to equal considerations. In such a community, the citizens pursue a balance between individual self-fulfilment and the advancement of the common good. Unconditional mutual love does good to others even when they lack the merit. This, sometimes, is referred to as loving the unlovable. It also believes that every person has an equal claim to fulfilment and an equal duty to be responsible. This is the ethical dimension of love (Cauthen 1997).

It could, therefore, be argued that agape demands the exercise of the intellect, the will, and the heart. It calls for a conscious, deliberate act of the mind and the heart. It is intellectual, emotional, and volitional in nature. It is reliable love. It sees no human being as being worthless; rather, it esteems, respects, and values all people irrespective of who or what they are. It is inclusive and impartial (Brown 1998). Biblical love, then, is not a passing emotion, but a way of life, a disposition, and a relationship of enduring commitment to the welfare of another. A major characteristic of agape is action.

In the Judaeo-Christian scripture, loving is often associated with obeying. Obedience is the outward expression of inward condition of love. Christians are commanded to love. “You shall love the LORD your God…You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37-39). In John 14:15, it is written: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments”; and “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (I John 5:3; 2 John 6). The concern of the Christian scripture is not how one feels about a person; rather, it is the choices one must make concerning the other person (Robertson 1995).

Additionally, Evans (2004) portrays Christian love as a duty that derives from a divine command to love one’s neighbour as oneself. The duty to love overcomes the selfishness of human love, treating all others equally. Love is eternally and happily secured against despair when it is seen and practised as a sacred duty. Love can be equated with spiritual up-building. It is the spiritual foundation of the Christian life. The lover is in the debt of love because he/she has already received the love of God. This debt they should not try to pay off.

Dimensions of Love

Christian love is multi-dimensional. It identifies two broad objects of love—love for God and love for others (one’s neighbours). Implied in the command to love the neighbour is the love for the self. In the discussions that follow, we shall endeavour to explore the nexus between ‘agapeic’ love and the environment. The discussion shall be woven around this command to love God, one’s neighbour, and oneself. Thus far, attempts have been made to engage in a general and robust interpretation of agape—Christian love. This has been carried out because agape is a central element of the biblical command to love God and one’s neighbours. Such a robust interpretation of love is important because linking environmental issues to love births a new possibility for the sensitisation and mobilisation of individuals and communities toward better waste evacuation practices, since, expectedly, all Christians share a commitment to the centrality of divine love (Onyezonwu 2014).

How can finite beings love God, an infinite Being, or love others just as God loves? Love is the imprint of God’s likeness in human beings. It is the indispensable characteristic of a Christian without which no one can claim membership of the family of God (cf.1John 4:7, 8). Love binds the Trinity into one, and from the overflow of that divine love came the creation and redemption of man, capable of loving and being in unity with God himself (Robertson 1995). To be the image of God is to reflect the Divine love. In Galatians 5:22, 23, Paul identifies love as the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Hence, the fruit of the Spirit encompasses the Christian’s relationship with God, his fellow human beings, and himself. To cultivate and develop the fruit of the Holy Spirit, the Christian must constantly abide in Christ. Therefore, love in the life of the Christian is a product of the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. It is the outward expression of the Spirit-led life. It is only when the Spirit lives in a Christian can he/she bear the fruit of love. In order to understand, experience, and genuinely practise love, one must first know God. Those who truly love do so because they know God (Brown 1998).

The concept of the Kingdom of God is a central theological theme in the Gospel. It reflects the reign of God over all creation and is characterised by justice, mercy, and the transformative love of God, extending to all aspects of life, including social, economic, and ecological domains (Wright 1996). This holistic vision of the Kingdom implies that God’s redemptive purposes include the entire creation, which He loves and sustains (Rom 8:19–23). Love is at the heart of the Kingdom of God. Thus, the Gospel portrays love as the greatest commandment, with Jesus stating, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind… and your neighbour as yourself” (Matt 22:37–39). This commandment is foundational to the ethics of the Kingdom, calling for a radical, self-giving love that mirrors God’s love for creation. Accordingly, Wright (2013) emphasises that the Kingdom of God is established through God’s love, revealed in Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection, which reconciles all things to God, including human beings and the natural world.

Pope Francis (2015), in Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home, underscores that the Kingdom of God calls for an “integral ecology” that recognises the interconnectedness of all creation and the need to live in harmony with nature. This vision of love extends beyond human relationships to encompass all of God’s creation, fostering an attitude of respect, care, and sustainability. Environmental sustainability, which involves the responsible use and stewardship of natural resources, aligns with this vision by ensuring that the earth’s resources are preserved for future generations (Horrell 2010). One of the Theologians, Jürgen Moltmann (1993), argues that the Kingdom of God includes the renewal of creation, not just in spiritual terms, but also in ecological and material realities. He suggests that environmental sustainability is an essential part of living out the values of the Kingdom, where God’s love and justice reign. Moltmann views ecological concern as a reflection of the Kingdom’s hope, in which the whole of creation participates in the redemption and renewal brought about by God.

In essence, the connection between the Kingdom of God and love implies a responsibility for Christians to love and care for the environment. This is a dimension of love this paper proposes: a kind of love that recognises the inter-related dynamics of all creation and the need for humans to live in harmony with nature.

4. Love, Creation, and the Environment

As an act of true love, God created the world. The Judaeo-Christian tradition ascribes the origin of the universe to the creative power of the God of love. The environment is something that God loves. Creation means God loving something into existence and sustaining it with warmth and concern until it grows—and attains its completion. The opening chapter of the Bible narrates how God’s immense love was hovering over the earth gently, creatively, and affectionately. God’s creative power and love for his creation are inseparable. If everything God makes is dear to him, if he is really the Lord and lover of life, if his loving Spirit dwells in a person, then everything he loves and cares for should be loved and cared for by the Christian who is Spirit-led (Ignacimuthu 2010).

When Christians deal with different creatures, they are dealing with living and non-living realities whom and which God respects and loves. Big or small, every creature is saying: “God is here”; “God loves you and me”; and “God loves us and the environment into existence.” When human beings respond positively to God’s call to respect the whole of creation, a bridge of mutual love is erected between creator and creation which is life-sustaining. If Christians follow Christ’s examples of life of service, their attitude to all creation will include a deep respect for the environmental laws and commitment to environmental sustainability. Nature is God’s gift to humanity—a token of his love and presence. Every gift has within it the giver’s heart and goodwill. The entire creation in its utter uniqueness is God’s word of love to humanity and the entire earth. Human beings are, from their very roots and foundations, a gift from God who is love and life. The environment is not only a gift, but also a task, and it is there to be transformed. In bringing about the needed transformation, God expects humans to maintain a relationship with the environment that is characterised by loving care, humility, and justice (Ignacimuthu 2010).

Human agency has its source within the spirit of life, which is manifested in the life processes and systems of the entire creation. By implication, the ecological and spiritual share a common divine source. Life and agency in the spirit will not undermine environmental well-being. A spirit-ordered agency is not destructive to life; rather, it upholds it. Nature does not require humans for its life, but it depends upon ordered behaviour to avoid its death or degradation at the hands of that agency. The transformed agency that results in ecologically acceptable practice is the human spirit in the Christian experience of redemption. The change in behaviour revealed in a transformed lifestyle will be felt in both the social and environmental domains.

The person who allows the spirit to transform his/her identity into Christ-likeness experiences grace. This gracious experience of the self, frees man from ego-centric life and enables him to act lovingly towards the other. By loving action, we mean actions that promote well-being. An environmental ethics, that is distinctively Christian, must extend love to the whole creation in order to represent the all-encompassing affection and care of God. The environment in many societies, especially developing communities, today, is in a state of ill-being. To act in ‘agapeic’ love is to respond to the source(s) of degradation in order to promote well-being (Onyezonwu 2014). This kind of response will justify the assertion by Vena (2009) that Christian love finds expression in caring and careful service in response to the needs of nature and out of respect for their divinely endowed intrinsic worth and in obedience to God who loves all. It seeks the other’s good or well-being.

5. Linking Agapeic Ethic with Creation and Environmental Care

In Christian theology, the creation narrative found in the Book of Genesis 1 and 2 marks the first act of divine revelation. The creation story reveals several key attributes of God: His omnipotence, wisdom, and desire for order. It also establishes God as the source of life, highlighting His ongoing relationship with the created world (Brueggemann 1982). The Theologian Karl Barth emphasises that creation is the “external basis of the covenant”, suggesting that, through the act of creating the world, God establishes a relationship with it and reveals His sovereign will (Barth 1958). Saint Augustine of Hippo also regarded creation as a fundamental act of divine revelation, arguing that the order and beauty of the natural world testify to God’s creative power and wisdom, portraying creation itself as a divine speech or communication of God’s attributes (Augustine of Hippo 1991). Linking Creation to Divine Love, theologians like Jürgen Moltmann have argued that God’s act of creating the world is an expression of His self-giving love. He describes creation as a “theatre of God’s glory,” where divine love is made manifest through the diversity and interdependence of all created things (Moltmann 1993). This perspective suggests that God’s love is evident in the way He sustains and nurtures the world, and in His desire for creation to flourish through humanity’s expression of similar love to others human beings, and to the non-human others.

Pope Francis, in his encyclical Laudato Si’, articulates that human beings are entrusted with the care of creation as a form of loving service, which includes respecting the natural world and promoting sustainable practices to protect it for future generations (Pope Francis 2015). Theologians like Leonardo Boff have linked this concept of stewardship with a “preferential option for the poor”, arguing that environmental degradation disproportionately affects the most vulnerable and that love for God and neighbour requires action to sustain the earth’s resources for all (Boff 1995). This idea is foundational in many Christian theological perspectives that advocate for environmental stewardship and sustainability. Recognising creation as an act of divine love carries ethical implications for how humanity should treat the environment. If creation is a gift of God’s love, then humanity is called to care for it responsibly.

Scholars such as Gulick (1991) and Lrby et al. (2016) have argued in favour of the earth as resources. It has been noted that Noah, like the second Adam was given the opportunity to repopulate the earth after the flood, and, as such, he was referred to as a man of the soil—in Hebrew, Adamah (Josiah and Jeffrey-Ebhomenmen 2023). The above stresses humanity’s close relationship with the soil—a relationship that is reciprocal in nature in the sense that the soil needs Adam’s work and he needs the soil’s produce’ (Bauckham 2016). However, there appears to be a missing link as the earth is merely seen or regarded as resources. It is of interest to note that, aside from earth’s benefit as resources, the earth also reacts and hurts when treated with no love. For instance, waste generates ill-being, and individuals as well as communities are daily confronted by its realities. According to environmentalists, the numerous effects include but are not limited to the following: the contamination of water systems, oceans, rivers, and streams, as well as wildlife. Deer and some other species of animals die when they eat plastic grocery bags left to blow away in the wind. Litter also poses a threat to public health. It is often a breeding ground for bacteria. Littering the environment can cause fires, and, unfortunately, this sends a message that the people who litter really do not care about the environment (Gholami et al. 2020; Scheid 2024).

In the context of agapeic ethic, Christians can respond to promote the well-being of their communities by preventing or removing the presence of that which causes ill-being— that is, waste, in the context of this study. According to the Bible, “Love does no harm to its neighbour” (Rom 13:10, NIV). Christian environmental ethics considers ‘neighbour’ to include not only humanity, but, also, all of creation. The one who loves his/her neighbour will not harm his/her health nor destroy his/her environment, nor pollute the source of his/her drinking water, nor the air he/she breathes, nor the beauty of the environment which brings him relief from stress or strain. The fact is that pollution arising from unsanitary waste disposal exposes the human community to diseases such as malaria, typhoid, and diarrhoea (Josiah and Eke 2021). Those affected spend money to treat the diseases in addition to the physical pain they experience. They equally suffer pain when displaced by flood caused by the indiscriminate dumping of waste. Worse still, diseases and flood-induced displacement can lead to the death of victims. These are not in line with the loving spirit of God. To love your neighbour as yourself is to desist from causing him/her harm. However, when people pollute the environment by poor waste disposal habits, and, consequently, cause pain and suffering for themselves and others, they show that they neither love themselves nor their neighbour (Onyezonwu 2014).

Christians’ love cannot be divorced from the biblical principle of ‘no harm.’ Avoidance of harm is an ethical principle that has also found a place in secular ethics. It includes not only the avoidance of direct harm but also implies an obligation to weigh carefully the consequences and impacts of one’s actions on others. It requires that human actions (in this context, waste disposal practices) should reflect the deliberate and thoughtful consideration of both potential unintended consequences of long-term impacts on individuals, communities, and the environment.

As earlier noted, love is often linked to obedience (John 14:15). To love God, therefore, is to obey Him. Christians’ love toward God will motivate them to obey the command to love their neighbours by not causing them harm. It will lead them to obey His command that they should obey the authority and laws enacted by the government to promote a pollution-free society. The one who truly loves God will not destroy His temple—the human body (1 Cor 6:15–19). Unfortunately, environmental pollution associated with the unsustainable accumulation and unhealthful evacuation of waste destroys human health, general well-being, and even causes death. The environment people live in affects their health either positively or negatively. Christians who engage in unhealthy habits of evacuation of waste display a lack of neighbour values. Their attitude undermines good neighbourliness. Their actions upset or disturb others living around (Onyezonwu 2014).

Polluting or dirtying the land within one’s vicinity, and the water drunk by the polluter(s) and other peoples, as well as the air all breathe in through the act of scattering rubbish and waste is bereft of courtesy. It exemplifies a lack of thought both for oneself and others. It does not promote the axiom: ‘Be your neighbour’s keeper’. It is expected of thoughtful people to be aware that others will be disturbed by any place they have dirtied, which actually spoils the beauty of nature. It is not an attribute of a believer in God or a sign of maturity to scatter food crumbs, bottles, cans, sachets, and or bottles of consumed water, wrappers, disposable take-away packs, pieces of paper, and other wastes in the neighbourhood, picnic areas, or ceremonial grounds, or to do anything that disturbs other people, or animals (Ignacimuthu 2010). It disrespects their right to a safe and clean environment, abuses the dignity of their human person, and questions their moral right.

When a neighbour becomes a constant threat to others’ comfort and right to a clean environment, it could lead to conflict. Odour from a neighbour’s refuse bin or a littering of refuse materials in public residential and business premises by a dirty neighbour irritates the sensory organs of sight and smell of others. This could trigger a confrontation and, by extension, hamper public relations. Fighting and the estrangement of human relationships violate the principle of love or good neighbourliness. The one who truly loves God will not destroy the environment which is God’s property and which he loves. Rather, driven by a love for God through the presence and power of the indwelling Spirit, he/she will obey the command to ‘dress and keep’ the earth (Onyezonwu 2014).

Any government that loves its people will strive to improve their well-being by showing more commitment to tackling the challenges posed by waste evacuation which threaten public health and safety. After all, many leaders claim to love and fear God or make reference to God. If individual Christians (including those in government) and the Christian community treat lovingly and with integrity the things created by God because they are His, things will change for the better.

6. Discussion on Corporate Practice of Some Churches

From observations, some of the selected churches had wastebaskets and were not littered with refuse. Although many of the church premises appeared neat, nevertheless, some of them maintained illegal dumpsites within their church premises. Rather than take their waste out to the public refuse points, some of them burnt their refuse at a corner or backyard of the church. Others had large waste containers where they dumped their wastes and paid waste collectors to evacuate them. However, a visit to these churches revealed that these large containers, most times, were filled with wastes, with some dropping on the ground because the members dumped their wastes on the ground of the private dump points when the containers were filled up. During our field study, two of the church premises were visited for three consecutive days and it was observed that the wastes were not evacuated. It implies that some selected Churches did not pay serious attention to the issues of prompt, regular solid waste disposal and general hygiene. Some of the Churches did not have wastebaskets at all; they resorted to burning their waste within the Church premises (Onyezonwu 2014, pp. 67, 68). This is a bad example of Christian environmental stewardship. It does not promote the good image of the church; thus, it is a stumbling block to mission.

The study also revealed that a majority of the population threw waste materials from moving automobiles while commuting from one place to another. The unwholesome act of the disposing of used items or leftover foods while travelling may have given rise to the increasing amount of street waste. Much of the work of street cleaning arises directly from inappropriate public behaviour, such as throwing litter on the streets and open spaces. It is instructive to note that, when parents dispose of waste materials carelessly while conveying their children in the car or walking on the road, they are setting bad examples for their children. They have failed in exercising their moral responsibility to the children. This may undermine their ability to enforce a moral consciousness in them (Onyezonwu 2014, p. 68). The greatest influence upon the child’s moral development is the home, that is, the parents.

The role of parents as educators is extremely important since children’s lifestyle and disposition to their environment and the larger society is, to a large extent, conditioned by the way they are brought up. Parents are powerful role models for their children. They teach their children through verbal communication, but their non-verbal behaviour is probably even more influential (Balswick et al. 1999). It is probable that children who are raised in a very dirty environment will be less conscious of hygiene, in thinking and practical attitude. As they grow, they will require more effort to imbibe and appreciate the essence of a clean environment. If they are not properly tutored on the benefits of neatness, they may grow and assume positions of authority and treat issues of environmental health with less concern or seriousness (Onyezonwu 2014, p. 156).

People show that they do not pay attention to their living conditions when they feel comfortable living and operating in filthy conditions. For example, some Rivers state people sell and eat “mama-put” brand of fast food near smelling refuse dumps. Evangelists and pastors shout Halleluiah while they are close to refuse dumps without considering the health implications to them and their worshipers. A well-developed and spiritually minded person will live consciously in his/her environment (Okorie 2008). These religious leaders have failed to understand and properly teach the principle of “cleanliness is next to godliness”. They have also failed in exemplifying responsible citizenship by refusing to use their position to call the attention of the Local Government Authority to the state of waste in their neighbourhood. As responsible citizens, they could have mobilised their congregations to evacuate the wastes through cooperative effort, and further help enlighten members of their host communities (Onyezonwu 2014, p. 157). Doing this would have served as a form of Christian mission of healing in line with Christ’s own mission.

In the name of God, the Creator, lover, and sustainer of the environment, many churches in Port Harcourt Metropolis litter the environment with filthy materials during their ceremonies such as harvest thanksgiving, wedding, retreats, camp meetings, congresses, etc. Josiah and Onyezonwu (2014) clearly linked the effect of waste disposal, polluted environment, and the gospel commission. In their work, the following is expressed:

When one degrades or pollutes the environment, it causes displacement, disease and even death. The gospel commission embodies healing and one of the ways to bring healing is through care for the environment where people live and work. The gospel will be less successful among displaced, diseased and bereaved families. When people are also sick and spend their scarce resources on treatment of their poor health, they are likely to contribute less to the evangelism fund of the church.

(p. 60)

From our observation, churches, after the aforementioned ceremonies, litter the venue and surrounding premises, with empty cans and bottles, water sachets, used serviettes and toilet tissues, disposal packs, meat and fish bones, and leftover foods like eba (garri), rice, moi-moi (steamed bean pudding), and so on. This action deviates from the example of Jesus after the feeding of the five thousand in John 6:3–13. Here, Jesus thoughtfully and intentionally gathered the leftover food to prevent littering. By so doing, he provided an uncommon and eternal lesson of conservation and preservation especially to His disciples.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

This paper has examined the concept of agape or biblical love, and its dimensions, as well as its relationship with eco-care. The strength of the paper is underscored by its ability to establish in clear terms that love for God, our ‘neighbour’, and oneself cannot be divorced from caring for creation, which accentuates the tenets of missions. The discussion on creation care centres extensively on the need for proper waste disposal among Christian populations. Christians’ involvement in keeping both private and public spaces clean is a practical testimonial of their love for God and their fellow human beings, including the non-human others. In this context, it is a fulfilment of mission where Christian love (agapeic ethic) serves as an ethical principle of ‘no harm’ to both the self and the neighbours, which include not only humanity but also all of creation. This paper strongly argues for agapeic ethic as a moral realism, such that it recognises the intrinsic value of nature. It posits that Christian eco-theology, ethics, and missional purpose, unless grounded in Christian love, suffer from a deficiency syndrome. It, therefore, concludes that the unsanitary management of waste births negative outcomes on the environment and human health, and diminishes the Christian ethical teaching on love for God, the neighbour (including the non-human other), and oneself, which ultimately negates the spirit and purpose of mission. On the other hand, caring for the environment especially through proper solid waste management brings healing to the entire humanity (humans and non-human others) and empowers missional activities.

The study thus recommends that, for agapeic love to truly manifest, there is the need for obedience to certain Judaeo-Christian guiding principles. This is because Christians’ love towards God should motivate them to obey the command to love their neighbours (other humans and non-humans) by not causing them harm. Until such love translates to obedience to the authority and laws enacted by the government, there would not be a pollution-free society fitted within the missional dimension.