In May 2010, the Alaotra grebe of Madagascar was officially declared extinct. Over-fishing, damage to its environment and the introduction of new species had resulted in the numbers of the small lake bird dwindling to the point of no return.

Does it matter? It’s an important question because the Alaotra grebe is just one of a vast number of species that we are only likely to know of from photographs and museum specimens. Some of them (like the giant panda) are well known while others are likely to become extinct even before scientists have described them. So should we be concerned about the loss of the Alaotra grebe and other similarly endangered species? And if so, why? If you listen to the experts you will hear two arguments about why we should be concerned. The first can be called the argument of self-preservation: because all living things are ultimately interconnected, the loss of any species may ultimately result in our own demise. The argument is that if we go on as we are, we will eventually destroy some critical species and the planet will tumble into catastrophe.

The second argument can be called the argument of self-interest: living species are an extraordinarily rich resource for human beings. Using them, we can make better products and can manufacture fuels and drugs (an example of this is another species from Madagascar, the rosy periwinkle, used in the production of cancer-fighting drugs).

Both arguments have merits, but to me they seem inadequate. Firstly, many species are probably neither vital nor valuable, and their extinction will no doubt be compensated by other species taking over their ecological role. Secondly, both arguments are rather self-centred. Do birds, plants and animals really have no value except when they perform some service for human beings? Most people feel sadness and disappointment with other examples of human damage to the environment too, such as the destruction of woodland or the pollution of a coastline. Yet neither the argument of self-preservation nor the argument of self-interest explains why we feel this way about the loss of a species.

The fact that we feel deeply about living things suggests that our relationship to nature is more complex than we might think. So what does the natural world really represent? Broadly speaking, there are two views. The first is the atheist view that the natural world is simply the product of random processes operating over enormous periods of time. It has no ultimate meaning or purpose. In this view, the history of life is pretty simple: some species get to pass on their genetic material, while others become extinct. The second view of the universe is what we might call the religious one. In this view, living things are all creations of God. Every bird, tree and insect is designed, created and cared for by God. The Alaotra grebe and every other living thing is as much a piece of creative art as a painting by Leonardo or a symphony by Beethoven.

Which of these two views we hold affects how we view both the natural world and the damage we are inflicting on it. If we agree with the atheist view, the loss of a species is ‘just one of those things’. If we hold a religious view, the loss of a species as a result of human activity is greed and sin.

The Bible does not just describe God as the creator of all living things. From the first chapter of Genesis, God gives human beings authority to rule wisely over the natural world. Human sin has made our rule foolish and cruel rather than wise and gentle but we are still ‘stewards’ of creation. As those who acknowledge that stewardship, we should be at the forefront of those trying to ensure that the natural world is managed in a fairer, wiser and less ruinous way.

Here I need to address two concerns that Christians have. The first is that ‘being green’ somehow threatens our faith. Some forms of environmentalism have become almost an alternative religion, preaching guilt and having their own prophets uttering gloomy warnings. So ‘greenness’ can become a religion that threatens our faith. But so can sport, music, healthy living and a hundred other things. Just because something can be abused doesn’t mean that it’s evil.

The second problem is that some Christians have suggested we should ignore what is happening to the natural world because Jesus is coming back soon and the entire creation will be destroyed and remade. But if we really believed that the Second Coming was imminent then the best response would be to cancel our pension schemes and give everything away. Not many people are doing that! In fact, the idea of Jesus returning in power and glory should be an incentive to wise stewardship rather than a justification for universal carelessness.

Psalm 104 celebrates the richness and variety of the natural world – including trees, lions and sea creatures – and praises the God who protects and sustains them. Verse 27 is key: ‘All creatures look to you to give them their food at the proper time.’

The hint provided by that phrase in Psalm 104 is that our responsibility and accountability extends to the entire living world. On the day of judgement we will be called to account for our care of all that has been entrusted to us, including the natural world.

The Bible affirms what our hearts tell us: this world is not the product of blind chaos but the beautiful and incredibly complex creation of a wise and good God. We need to recognise God as creator but also as caring Father and realise that we have a responsibility to all that God has made.