By our very way of life, we are destroying what God created, and are oppressing our fellow humans. I believe that the most important moral issues for the emerging church will be things like:
the ease and speed with which we travel; our meat-rich diet which requires more than our share of the available productive soil; the amount of living space we consider necessary for comfort; our ‘disposable’ consumer lifestyle.These aspects of our lifestyle have changed at least as dramatically in the last 50 years as western society’s attitudes to sexuality and relationships, but the Church has almost nothing to say about them.
This is astonishing, because they are the cause of wildly escalating problems like:
pollution of sea, air and land desertification of fertile land global warming - with as yet unknown consequences destruction of rich wildlife habitats like rainforests and coral reefs… and so it goes on.
What this means theologically is, i believe,
‘abominate the Lord your God, neglect your work as stewards, and plunder his creation for your own personal luxury;
and oppress your neighbour, steal the portion of hundreds of fellow humans for your own, impoverish and enslave them.’
Why has the church - even in its most thoughtful emerging manifestations - so very little to say on this subject? This is a global injustice, we are all deeply implicated. The law, the psalms, the prophets, Christ, all speak of how our relationship to the earth, as well as to our neighbour, affects our relationship to God - draws us nearer or alienates us.
Should the emerging church not be calling itself and society to repentance and a new way of life? Should it not be exploring what the Bible has to say about the predicament we are in, and seeking a new morality to address it?
And yet, i feel awkward saying it. Am i an eccentric single-issue fanatic? Or is the church too deeply settled in a way of life involving cars, ready-meals, detached houses, and three holidays a year to hear the word of God clearly?
Our Relationship to the Earth
These are thoughtful and provocative comments that the emerging church should be, and I would imagine to some extent, is addressing. It is not a new subject, but one that has taken a theological back seat to others. To a certain degree it is understandable when we typically hold a pessimistic view of the world. That is to say, we tend to believe that the world is not becoming a better place. Not only has man fallen in sin, but creation fell with it. Social injustices continue to mount. Christians are increasingly persecuted. The end is near (or is it?). Why focus on something that will ultimately be replaced with a “new earth” (Rev 21)?
How should we as Christians respond? Our pessimistic view should not give us licence to exploit God’s creation. You insightfully comment:
Here are what I see as some initial points for the emerging church to address the issue theologically:
1) At the heart of this issue is our understanding of the fall and its effect on creation (Gen 3).
2) Humanity’s “dominion” of creation must also be addressed (Gen 2).
3) Whatever scripture has to say about the environment has to be taken in context. The environmental issues we are confronted with today are not the same as then. To suggest that scripture speaks clearly to these issues is anachronistic at best. While there was apparently a concern for the fertility of soil in the Old Testament, we cannot assume that this addresses environmental injustice (Lev 25).
4) A “new morality” is not necessarily the answer. We must, however, address the issue of a moral responsibility.
I’m certain that there are a number of other issues that deal with this important topic; not the least of which is the Christian witness in a western world that is crying out about environmental injustice. We need to have a voice in this arena of discussion, but we also need to take action.
What do you suggest are areas where Christians might be able to act?
Let's explore this further
Michael, it would be helpful if you could expand your first two points. What sort of doctrine of creation and fall does the emerging church need if it is to offer an effective and godly response to environmental injustice and excess?
In the meantime, I have some further points to add…
1. Disengagement from idolatrous behaviour: Green girl uses the phrase ‘abominate the Lord your God’ – it would be interesting to explore the idea that aspects of our lifestyle and of our cultural and economic engagement are fundamentally idolatrous. It’s not going to be as clear cut as it is with standard religious forms of idolatry, but it may help to sharpen the theological critique of environmental malpractice in this way – how close is consumerism to paganism? We would then need to find concrete, practical, visible ways to disengage, in the interests of holiness, from behaviour that is deeply offensive to God (cf. 2 Cor.6:14-18) – without falling into the opposite trap of denying the goodness and pleasurableness of the material world.
2. A holistic concept of salvation: a doctrine of salvation (and as an extension of that sanctification) that addresses people within their environment, as part of their environment, would take us in the right direction. We are embedded creatures, and a theology that doesn’t allow for this is bound to be inadequate. The Hebrew notion of shalom would provide a good initial template for this. The argument is valid even given a pessimistic view of the world: the believer is urged to see herself as being already ‘new creation’, not merely as a soul saved for heaven. But surely this has implications for the world: if to be ‘new creation’ means that the environment around the believer is somehow caught up in the process of redemption, because the believer is inseparable from the world and human culture, then this is bound to have an impact on the wider environment. If my world begins to change, then my neighbour’s world will also be affected, whether he believes or not.
3. A God-centred environmentalism: by making the new creation the centre of our environmentalism we may avoid a danger that arises particularly because, as Michael points out, the Bible does not directly address this type of problem – we lack biblical precedents so we find it much harder to grasp the theological implications. Environmental activism can very easily become itself a substitute for knowing God, and therefore just another form of idolatry. The new creation motif keeps our environmentalism practical and relational rather than ideological or romantic. It also keeps it God-centred because the new creation is a work of God. Problems always arise when we disconnect social and environmental engagement from the work of the Spirit in and through the covenant people.
4. Symbolic praxis: patterns of biblical prophecy powerfully suggest a way to bring theology and praxis together in actions and events that speak loudly of God’s concern for the world and for people within the world. I would suggest that we need to find ways to integrate socially and environmentally oriented praxis into the core of being Christian – in the same way that more familiar forms of symbolic praxis such as baptism, communion, marriage, and giving are locked into the defining structures of faith. We have tried a few things in London – working on local conservation projects, picking up litter. Hopefully such prophetic actions would eventually have not only a small-scale but also a large-scale impact; but the priority, it seems to me, is to work these things, these attitudes, into the normal routine of Christian life.
Creation
Apologies for changing my username which seemed a good idea on Friday afternoon and very twee on Monday morning…
Michael identifies the key theological issues. I have an uneasy feeling that we need to understand them in quite a different way (though not, i hope, without precedent in Christian thought) in the light of our current situation…
One effect the fall seems to have had on us, and not on creation is that we are uneasy with creation - we are homeless in the world. Whereas rocks and plants and animals appear to fit contentedly into the ecosystem, and get on with their lives without worrying about it (“consider the lilies”?), humanity’s relationship to the world involves continuous uneasy reflecting, working, painting, writing poetry, exploiting, researching, developing. Is this because of the fall, or because of our sense of the divine?
We don’t think much about the effect of the fall on creation. I guess hints in Isaiah etc suggest that predation, earthquake, famine, flood and disease are results (although the last three are increasingly caused by our shortcomings). But we (or at least, I) am rather hazy about it.
Will the ‘new creation’ be a completely different creation, or our present creation transformed? Passages like Romans 8. 29 (‘the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God’) suggest the latter. In that case, as we aim to keep ourselves holy and unpolluted and fit for the kingdom, do we not have a responsibility to do the same for creation?
I hope a Hebraist will help out here but I seem to remember being told that the way to understand the bit about this in Genesis is that we are to rule on earth as God’s ‘vice-regents’ or ‘stewards’. I wonder whether the parable of the watchful manager in Luke 12. 35-48 refers back to this bit of Genesis? The parable talks not about personal holiness, but about how we carry out our responsibility; and the specific responsibility humanity is given in the bible is to rule over creation. This makes it a parable relevant to every one of us, not just, for example, to church leaders, which is how it might traditionally have been interpreted.
True and I’m not enough of a biblical scholar to feel very authoritative on this. But it is the case that the ancient civilizations pretty well ruined the ecology of the Middle East, which helps account for the fact that it was the centre of civilization then and a turmoil of war and poverty now. For example, I don’t think there are many cedars left in Lebanon for modern day psalmists to sing of - they were all cut down for projects like Solomon’s temple.
The Old Testament is quite concerned with issues of land ownership - which is an important ecological issue today. In the Pentateuch land is not owned outright, but held as an inheritance under God, and there are laws like the Jubilee years to prevent too much land concentrating in too few hands. By the time of the prophets, these are being flouted (Woe to you who add house to house and join field to field till no space is left and you live alone in the land. Isaiah 5. 8) - and is seen as an injustice against God, fellow humans, and the land, who will all join in punishment of the rich exploiters. Although the types of exploitation have changed, I think the laws and prophecies apply fairly well to us. At any rate these are issues which deserve thought.
I must stop using the word morality - it has bad connotations! Maybe a new ethics? Christian ethics is in the process of massive rethinking (whichever direction you want it to be rethought in) to remain relevant in a time of tremendous social change. I’m scared that we’ll be so busy worrying about the speck in the eye of our sexually deviant neighbour that we miss the plank of an entire lifestyle which destroys and oppresses in our own.
Yes, it’s hard not to become very ‘anti’ when engaging with ecological issues. I’ve been inspired recently by an architect called William McDonough who was interviewed in New Scientist. He believes that most ecological advice - eg, ‘Reduce, reuse, recycle’ - is unhelpful as it makes us feel as if we are in a world of limits and scarcity. He would prefer us to start with the attitude (which incidentally is a bibilical one) that the world is one of plenty and abundance. He would like to design buildings that are like a cherry tree. It is not efficient - it produces hundreds of blossoms each year that do it no good whatever - but it is effective. It produces oxygen, looks beautiful, improves the local climate and water supply, provides cherries, reproduces itself, and when it dies, fertilizes the soil and leaves no waste. I believe a Christian view of the environment should be similarly positive - although how this translates into everyday lifestyle I’m not quite sure.
Sacrament is a powerful Christian way of connecting the material and divine worlds. How might that fit in?
Luke 12:35-48
Eleanor, I think we need to read Luke 12:35-48 (and similar texts) first in its historical context and start from the assumption that it was meaningful for the disciples. This is likely to preclude or at least marginalize many modern readings that attempt to make Jesus’ teaching an argument about personal holiness, church leadership, environmental responsibility, or whatever. His concern has to do with the readiness of the disciples for an impending event that is described in this context as the coming of the Son of man, the coming of the master to his house, and as the break-in of a thief. I have suggested elsewhere on this site that this ‘event’ was to be concretely realized through the destruction of the temple and the establishment of the church in the world. I suspect, though, that in this passage it is judgment on Israel that is at the forefront of Jesus’ mind. The image of the thief in the night (12:39) evokes Joel 2:9 and Jeremiah 49:9 in the Septuagint; the master will punish the unfaithful servant; and the passage continues in 12:49 with Jesus’s fierce warning: ‘I came to cast fire upon the earth….’
I don’t think we can simply say, therefore, that the stewardship referred to in these stories of watchfulness is the same as the ‘stewardship’ over creation entrusted to Adam. It has to do rather with the responsibility of the disciples for the ‘household’, ie. for Israel or the people of God. But I also think that in a post-eschatological situation we need to learn how to worship a God who took delight in the creation of the cosmos. As ‘priests’ of a creator God we are bound to embody his interests in the world. We also need to anticipate in our lives and in our witness, practically and prophetically, a final redemption that will embrace all things. If we are the ‘new creation’ in microcosm, then somehow that must encompass more than the renewal of the individual spirit: it must include our environment.
Earth as home; Salvation as healing
I’m new to the world of OST, but so pleased to hear the questions raised about our lifestyle. I feel distinctly trapped in the house-rent-insurance-car-bills-work-income-holidays-busyness web (not that that’s an uncomfy place for me to be, you understand). And from a mission point of view, many’s the time I’ve agonised about whether the best witness is ‘normal’ life which is ‘within reach’ of others, or a more transformational community with different values. Marva Dawn (Unfettered Hope) has really got me thinking on the lifestyle issues, but I also wanted to offer two theological pointers.
The earth as home is about feeling we belong here, were made to be here and will one day rule here (even if ‘here’ will be a much renewed place). I feel this is vital and much missing from our thoughts. This is about having a vision for 9-5 work as well - the cultivation of the garden (if that’s what our work is!).
Salvation as healing is about seeing a broken world come right. It seems to me, on this point, that the model of ‘perfect world - sin and salvation - perfect heaven’ is particularly hard to relate to real life. At the moment I’m thinking about a creation which was good (note - not ‘perfect’) but required development. This gives me hope. It helps me fit science into my worldview; it encourages me in the pursuit of the development of the world; and it reassures me that the end will truly be better than the beginning and that the process of getting there will have been worth it.
These would seem to me to be vital components in a refreshing story about our world. But roll on, please, with future comments about HOW we might do transformational community as Christians.
At home?
I’m not quite sure how we relate to the created world.
I heard a sermon recently by Richard Holloway, outspoken former bishop of Edinburgh, in which he suggested that we, of all creation, are least at home in the world (you can read it here). Whereas ‘foxes have holes, and birds have their nests, the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head’. Animals and plants fit in beautifully to their ecosystem: they do what they do without a care in the world. They are obedient without trying - Thomas Aquinas said they were obeying ‘natural law’. Whereas we, the children of men, are always thinking, reflecting, experimenting, messing it up… we are not completely at home in the world - we can see it, as it were, from an outside perspective.
I’m not sure whether this is because we are drawn downwards into destructiveness by sin, or because we are drawn upwards into rejecting earthly things towards the Divine! Pollution looks more like the former, but art and poetry more like the latter. Humanity is such a tangled mixture of both that good and evil are impossible to separate.
But we know that we are called to build the kingdom. What does that mean in terms of the natural world? We can’t make the Lion lie down with the lamb, as Isaiah says. We can try to change a system which meant that 9000 acres of Amazon rainforest were cut down last year to provide us with cheap beefburgers. But where are we heading? There’s an eschatological question in there. What does ‘Christ redeems all creation’ mean? and what will the kingdom of heaven be built out of? does it matter if we ruin the current heaven and earth before God unveils the new ones?
does that make any sense??
Surely, at home
Yes, I think these concerns make sense.
Our out-of-placeness is obvious and everywhere, as you say. But our roots are surely here (we weren’t designed to live anywhere else). And I would say that our destiny is here too (albeit a renewed ‘here’!). Otherwise, what does it say about the original creation if it needs to be replaced once it is redeemed? What kind of redemption would that be? And what exactly is wrong with physical existence in this space-time universe that can’t be fixed by the reconciling work of Christ? So maybe salvation is about ‘re-homing’. What do you think?
I thought I’d follow the flow with some numbered comments of my own, relating to this whole thread:
1 - beginnings. I don’t agree that predation and disease only date back to the ‘fall’. In fact I wonder if that term is so helpful now. The biblical record never speaks of a ‘fall’ from perfect origins (is there even a Hebrew word for perfect in that sense?). Instead it speaks of a good world created to be perfected through human stewardship. This fits much more with what we know of evolution (which surely excludes the late development of predation and disease). But it also gives us plenty of environmental mandate (without recourse to gospel parables). Salvation surely includes a rediscovery of this task. It seems especially odd to me that what creation made a good (ecology and cultural development) redemption, in some evangelicalism, has made an evil (that is, a pointless distraction from ‘gospel’ work).
On the other hand, if (as I think) the mandate to cultivate our environment and human potential still applies, then these actions not only reflect our origins but they also contribute to our future. I always think of Solomon as a good example in this respect (despite the Cedar abuse!). 1 Kings 4 portrays him not only as a diplomat and philosopher, but also an ecologist of sorts (4:33 ‘He described plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of walls. He also taught about animals and birds, reptiles and fish’).
2 - endings. I am concerned about the ‘pessimistic’ view Michael describes. The replacement of creation not only raises question marks over the goodness of the first creation but also about the purpose of everything since. Has it all just been a waiting room for eternity? Doesn’t the book of Revelation revel in the presence of tribes and tongues (that is, human cultures) in the new creation, and the glory of the kings of the earth being brought into the city. It’s a city, rememeber, not just a garden again! This (and the stuff in Romans 8) is all about God bringing the best out of all of history’s struggles and experiences. Who can say what science, agriculture, art and labour will not contribute in some way to that great culmination?
This isn’t exactly environmentalism. We can’t ‘keep’ creation for God (as if we were God). But I would say our care of it is not only an anticipation of the future, but a contribution to it (even if it’s a fragile and incomplete contribution). Apologies for my excitement over all this, but it has come to mean quite a bit to me.
3 - Practicalities. I like the cherry tree illustration (but struggled to explain it to my wife!). I just wonder if the reason it’s so hard to answer the question of HOW to lead radical lives in this area is that, as a church, we’ve not really asked it yet. Does God reveal the way forward until his people ‘call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding…look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure’ (Prov 2)?
Thanks for your thoughts on this,
mark
is there hope?
green girl, I don’t think you’re an eccentric fanatic! Thanks for bringing this up. I don’t know what the situation is like in U.K., but in the states the emergent church phenomena is primarily occuring w/in the evangelical fold, whereas the social justice tradition is primarily located in the mainline protestant/catholic segments of christianity. That leaves me very concerned about the likelihood that the emergent church will grab a hold of justice issues in any serious way. My community identifies both with “emergent church” values and social justice values, so we end up feeling pretty isolated and lonely in a lot of ways.
It’s puzzling to me, since such a huge proportion of Jesus’ ministry was empowering people who needed help (primarily through healing and exorcism). It seems odd that this central aspect of Jesus’ life and teachings gets so systematically excluded, overlooked, ignored, and reinterpreted. I think people get hung up on HOW he did it, largely through a miraculous power that most of us don’t feel we have, and ignore WHAT he did, which was to empower sick and oppressed people, over and over and over. He made it quite clear that he expected his followers to continue his ministry of empowerment, even through mundane, less spectacular means (cups of cold water, visits to prisons, sharing clothes). But it seems like very few churches have made that aspect of Jesus’ ministry central to their own, and even fewer have recognized that empowerment requires justice and a serious turn from the consumeristic lifestyle, not just doling out charitable hand-outs.
My community’s meager attempt to facilitate this discussion is here; http://www.reconstruction.us. I’m encouraged to run across you all here. (Oh, yeah, we’re N.T. Wright fans also!)