This response to Nash’s paper, while appreciating his legitimate concerns, argues for the following. First with respect to hermeneutics, he counters the literal use of scripture to support biodiversity in ecclesial statements with literal examples of negative ethical practice. Both are hardly warrant for the total exclusion of scripture from moral arguments. Secondly, his own preference for the active appropriation of theological traditions is rooted in a history of interpretation of scripture. Thirdly, in his desire to be inclusive of ecological and scientific literature, it is not always clear which authority, if any, is setting the criteria for moral reasonableness. Fourthly, his sharp distinction between wilderness and pastoralia may not be as problematic as he believes to be the case.