Ecotheology Part 1
The idea I raised last time that the Earth is a creature, is taken directly from James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, which I found to be both impressive and persuasive. James Lovelock says that “Most of us sense that the Earth is more than a sphere of rock with a thin layer of air, ocean, and life covering the surface. We feel that we belong here, as if this planet were indeed our home. Long ago the Greeks, thinking this way, gave to the Earth the name of Gaia." (James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia) As much as the Gaia Hypothesis appealed to me I wanted not to read the Gaia hypothesis back into scripture but to see if a Gaia hypothesis or something similar was already within the Biblical texts.
In Genesis 1:1 we read that the earth (like humans) was created by God. If we can define a creature as simply something that has been created by God then the earth is a creature. Over and above this the earth also exhibits many, many features that one might usually consider solely the expression of a creature rather than an object. Indeed these are all creature like features that the earth and humanity share. These are…
The Question that arises from concluding that the earth is a creature is how do we relate to this creature? Or, how do we relate to the earth?
Too often I think that our relationship with the Earth has fallen into these four possible categories: Rock, Gift, Slave and Master
1. The Earth is a rock: This is pretty much an ancient Greek view of the world where all physical matter is corrupt, and the earth has value only for what we can get from it.
2. The Earth is a gift from God: This kind of sounds nice and to an extent is true the only problem is that the earth has value purely because it is a gift from God and has no value in it’s self.
3. Earth is our slave (or under us): Whether we try and dress this up by using words like steward or priest invariably we will take this as meaning the earth is inferior to humanity, due to the authority we have been given to stewards and priests. For this reason I think these words are not helpful.
4. Earth is the master we obey (or above us): This probably the view James Lovelock would ascribe to. He asserts that when humanity dies out the earth will live on and that bacteria deep in soils and seabeds are probably more important to the earths survival than plants and animals. The problem with this, even though it may be true is that I don’t think this view in necessary helpful when for my entire lifetime I could do as I please to the earth and feel no real consequence as a result. In many ways, I think, an earth centred ecotheology will, in the long run, be as unhelpful as wanting to replace Patriarchy with Matriarchy. The answer to anthropocentric theology is not earth-centred theology but a de-centred theology of relationship. A theology of relationship between two co-created creatures were we view our selves not as stewards over creation, but as kin.
Part of the reason I like to use the word relationship with the earth, rather than phrases like ‘steward’ or even terms like inter-related, was to avoid any word that had a hint of power or control. Although it may be true that humanity and the earth are interrelated the reality is that most western Christians are living as though we are not, and can quite happily live as though we are not, until the environmental crisis gets so bad and it is too late to turn back. What is more the term inter-related may have overtones control, a kind of wrestling were if one does one thing that may affect the other and vice versa – which could lead us back to asking questions of who controls who rather than a picture of two co-created beings standing beside each other ready to start to understand each other.
This does not mean that there is not power in the relationship. Whether it is we have the power to destroy the earth or as James Lovelocks suggests that we will be a mere hiccup on the earth this is not helpful. What is more different people in different places on the earth will have different relationships with the earth. We i the west are more likely to be the oppressors and not the oppressed. So a western response to how they relate to the earth may be very different to how someone in a dessert ravaged country with seasonal flood might relate to the earth. In the later case it may indeed be appropriate to encourage them to follow Genesis 1:28 and subdue the earth by building some dams to hold the flood waters and grow vegetation with this water.
Therefore, it should be no surprise that there isn't a single uniformed attitude towards the natural world in the Bible. Different time periods and circumstances require different perspectives. This is surely the nature of a relationship! That is it changes and grows.
Final installment next week.
Ecotheology Part 3
The idea I raised last time that the Earth is a creature, is taken directly from James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, which I found to be both impressive and persuasive. James Lovelock says that “Most of us sense that the Earth is more than a sphere of rock with a thin layer of air, ocean, and life covering the surface. We feel that we belong here, as if this planet were indeed our home. Long ago the Greeks, thinking this way, gave to the Earth the name of Gaia." (James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia) As much as the Gaia Hypothesis appealed to me I wanted not to read the Gaia hypothesis back into scripture but to see if a Gaia hypothesis or something similar was already within the Biblical texts.
In Genesis 1:1 we read that the earth (like humans) was created by God. If we can define a creature as simply something that has been created by God then the earth is a creature. Over and above this the earth also exhibits many, many features that one might usually consider solely the expression of a creature rather than an object. Indeed these are all creature like features that the earth and humanity share. These are…
- We are both created by God
- We both sing praise to God
- We are both blessed by God
- We both have a Sabbath
- God has made a covenants with both of us
- We are both cursed from the fall
- Jesus was sent for both of us
- We are both awaiting redemption
- We can both become a new creation in Christ
The Question that arises from concluding that the earth is a creature is how do we relate to this creature? Or, how do we relate to the earth?
Too often I think that our relationship with the Earth has fallen into these four possible categories: Rock, Gift, Slave and Master
1. The Earth is a rock: This is pretty much an ancient Greek view of the world where all physical matter is corrupt, and the earth has value only for what we can get from it.
2. The Earth is a gift from God: This kind of sounds nice and to an extent is true the only problem is that the earth has value purely because it is a gift from God and has no value in it’s self.
3. Earth is our slave (or under us): Whether we try and dress this up by using words like steward or priest invariably we will take this as meaning the earth is inferior to humanity, due to the authority we have been given to stewards and priests. For this reason I think these words are not helpful.
4. Earth is the master we obey (or above us): This probably the view James Lovelock would ascribe to. He asserts that when humanity dies out the earth will live on and that bacteria deep in soils and seabeds are probably more important to the earths survival than plants and animals. The problem with this, even though it may be true is that I don’t think this view in necessary helpful when for my entire lifetime I could do as I please to the earth and feel no real consequence as a result. In many ways, I think, an earth centred ecotheology will, in the long run, be as unhelpful as wanting to replace Patriarchy with Matriarchy. The answer to anthropocentric theology is not earth-centred theology but a de-centred theology of relationship. A theology of relationship between two co-created creatures were we view our selves not as stewards over creation, but as kin.
Part of the reason I like to use the word relationship with the earth, rather than phrases like ‘steward’ or even terms like inter-related, was to avoid any word that had a hint of power or control. Although it may be true that humanity and the earth are interrelated the reality is that most western Christians are living as though we are not, and can quite happily live as though we are not, until the environmental crisis gets so bad and it is too late to turn back. What is more the term inter-related may have overtones control, a kind of wrestling were if one does one thing that may affect the other and vice versa – which could lead us back to asking questions of who controls who rather than a picture of two co-created beings standing beside each other ready to start to understand each other.
This does not mean that there is not power in the relationship. Whether it is we have the power to destroy the earth or as James Lovelocks suggests that we will be a mere hiccup on the earth this is not helpful. What is more different people in different places on the earth will have different relationships with the earth. We i the west are more likely to be the oppressors and not the oppressed. So a western response to how they relate to the earth may be very different to how someone in a dessert ravaged country with seasonal flood might relate to the earth. In the later case it may indeed be appropriate to encourage them to follow Genesis 1:28 and subdue the earth by building some dams to hold the flood waters and grow vegetation with this water.
Therefore, it should be no surprise that there isn't a single uniformed attitude towards the natural world in the Bible. Different time periods and circumstances require different perspectives. This is surely the nature of a relationship! That is it changes and grows.
Final installment next week.
Ecotheology Part 3
No comments:
Post a Comment