Towards a Credible Ecumenical Theology of Nature

David Gosling

Introduction The churches and the world lack a credible theology and philosophy of nature

which takes into account the discoveries and insights of both science and theology. The absence of this alternative is a central factor in the alienation between God. humanity and nature. The phrase "integrity o f creation", which emerged from the Sixth Assenibly of the World Council of Churches (Vancouver, 19X3), signifies an attempt to rediscover a sense of the wholeness o f the creation in relation to God and the need for ethical imperatives towards renewal and at-oneness.

"Integrity o f creation" replaces "Sustainability" in the Just. Participatory and Sustainable Society (JPSS), and is part of the post-Vancouver theme Justice, Peace and the Integrity o f Creation (JPIC). The phrase will be used in what follows as shorthand for the overall theme. though it will also be clainied that i t is foundational and therefore more than merely symbolic.

The theological task o f rediscovering the wholeness of creation and generating appropriate ethical imperatives t o act in accordance with this vision is an ongoing task which is being pursued by many eminent theologians such as Jurgen Moltniann, Charles Birch, John B. Cobb and others.' I t becomes ecumenical when different theological and philosophical approaches are part of a conciliar process o f interaction and enrichment. Hut there is an additional dimension which lilts up and. i t is hoped, integrates the process on another level. which is represented by phrases such as JI'SS. JPIC. and integrity of creation.

These phrases are "middle axioms", "realizable utopias". which help theology to interact with the concrete data of the world. Thus sustainability in the JI'SS clearly

0 The Rev. I>avtd Ciosling is director of the W W ' s Subunit on Church and Scicicty. ' Jurgrn Moltniann. God in C'rcwrron. London. SCM. 10x5. Charles Birch ;mil John 13. ('ohh. 7'11~. Lihcvdori of /$c. C'arnhridye. Cambridge University Prebh. I YX I

322

TOWAKIX A CREDIBLE LXUMENICAL THIOLOGY OF NATURE

identified God’s justice with every aspect of creation. I t encapsulated the fact that the earth’s natural resources are limited, and distributed in such a manner as to aggravate human injustice. Although not a biblical word, sustainability does compensate for some very unbiblical approaches to creation in which nature is reduced to a purely instrumental role and stripped of its intrinsic value.2 Integrity of creation must at the very least carry forward our responsibility to sustain the ecosysteni.

Middle axioms illuminate important new emphases, hold them up in a coherent and communicable form. and provoke appropriate responses. Some may appear superficially to be more biblical than others, but the process of generating them is hardly new, and among Christians has its origin in the Bible. “Second Adam”, “kingdom of God” and “new creation” all infuse traditional images with eschatological hope, and thereby to a greater or lesser extent evoke the need for action.

There are, however, two features of integrity of creation which. it is claimed. will carry it beyond previous ecumenical discussions. The first is that the vision of wholeness must be expressed from within a varicty of cultural contexts and not merely in classical European and North Atlantic categories. Thus. for example, Asians, whether Christian or not, may be more inspired by a model o f the relationship between humanity and nature derived from Vedanta than one from European modes of thought.3 Similarly Latin American churches may wish to express their ecological concern in terms of relationships with land borrowed from indigenous Indians. Some East Asian theologians may question the separateness implied by the use of the phrase integrity of creation and argue for an understanding of God in terms of context. And from Africa John Pobee summarizes the task as follows:

It is inadequate to have Africans appropriate completely the North Atlantic statement of theology without any adjustment and reference to their own context. Therefore the first task of African Christian theology regarding creation is how to free theology from its captivity and t o use African insights and experience to express the biblical insights about creation.. . . In the African context the evil in the creation which was created good is not an academic issue. I t is a matter of the survival of peoples in the Sahel. in Tanzania. in South Africa.‘

As churches o f the South increasingly recognize the importance of ecological issues - though perhaps perceiving them differently - they must be enabled to articulate their responses in culturally appropriate ways. Integrity of creation will therefore necessarily be expressed in a variety of ways held together within a universal ecumenical framework circumscribed by the Bible, tradition and the social, political, economic, ecological and cultural data of the world.

Another important dimension of the explication o f integrity of creation concerns current debates about environmental ethics. In Europe and North America these take the form of increasing concern about acid rain, lead in petrol and similar issues; and they also underlie many of the decisions made by public inquiries. How. for example, docs an inquiry inspector in the UK decide whether or not permission should be

’ David Gosline, “The Morality of Nuclear Powcr”. Theo/oKv. Vol . LXXI . January 1978, p.27. ’David Gosling. Science mnd Kelixion in India, Madras. CLS & CISRS. 1976. ‘“Creation. the Most Important l a s k for a Theology of Creation Ttday“ (to bc published).

323

THE ECLMENICAI. REVIEW

granted for the building of a nuclear reprocessing facility? How docs or should he balance conflicting social and environmental presumptions. weighing them against consequences for future generations? How do the decision-making procedures differ from those in the FKG and the USA? Sadly, in Asia. Africa and Latin America procedures are often inadequate, or the necessary infrastructure needed to support them is lacking. Hence we have disasters such as the one at Bhopal. and environmental exploitation such as nuclear testing and dumping in the Pacific. There is an urgent need lbr a universal environmental ethic based on a wholistic understanding of ecosystems.

All these concerns are legitimate and important in their own right, and to some extent can be addressed separately. The phrase integrity of creation is meant t o emphasize the linkages, to add an ecumenical dimension and to stimulate concerted act ion.

In what follows we shall mainly consider niore limited aspects of the quest for a scientifically credible ecumenical theology.

Contributions from ecology A credible contemporary theology and philosophy of nature must take into account

new scientific discoveries. Among these the findings of ecology, particularly its emphasis o n relationships. are extremely important.

Ecology investigates living organisms o r species in relation to their total environment. I t therefore deals with organisins in systems rather than as individual entities, combining the findings of the biological sciences with those of macro- disciplines such as geology and geography. A good example o f a comparatively recent ecological insight is the realization that when forests die not only is a major agricultural resource lost, but irreplaceable species of plants. which might assist us in the eradication of disease, are also destroyed. Thus ecology bridges the gap between species (a biological term) and fuel, food, etc. -- notions drawn from more macroscopic disciplines. Ecology challenges the historic scientific tendency to find significance in the analytic breakdown of nature into its component parts, and points to a wholistic concept in which the parts are seen t o be important in relation to the whole.

Where hunian activity is directly involved. ecology is sometimes called ekistics. A simple example of hunian intervention is the transformation o f European fen lands from swamp ecologies to rich farms. Were we now to abandon them they would assume forest ecologies in less than two centuries (acid rain permitting!).

Kclationship is now the key notion in ecology. An entity ib what i t is by virtue of its relationships. At the shallow level this refers to external relationships: hence we can talk about ecology in biology. At the deeper level ecology is the study of internal relationships that determine the constitution of an entity, e.g. relationships between persons. Deep ecology emphasizes the value of relationships which enhance the total life o f entities and not merely their existence.

Thus ecology raises ethical problems in that it utilizes the notion o f enhancement of life and also views human beings as a major determinant within the ecosystem. What we believe about humankind affects our approach to nature as much as

‘Birch and Cohh. op. c / / .

324

TOWARDS A CREDIBLE ECUMENICAL THEOLOGY OF NATURE

discoveries about human life and the world affect our perception of humanity. In particular, our understanding of the relationship of God to human and non-human life requires much further elaboration if we are to have a substantial ethical and theological base for evaluating genetic engineering in humans and other vertebrates, and issues such as in v i m fertilization.

At this point it is convenient to attempt a rough definition of integrity of creation which incorporates the ecological insight that relationships are foundational to our world.

Integrity means wholeness and integral unity, whereas the creation as we apprehend it is broken and incomplete. Just as there are degrees of brokenness and alienation, so there must be degrees of integrity. A critical concept of integrity is to be found in relationships, some of which enhance and heal, others which damage and alienate. We learn from ecology and in other ways that an entity is what it is by virtue of its complex interdependence. Beginning, therefore, with our own human experi- ence we discover that attaining a more complete humanity involves our relationship with the total environment (which includes God). This enables us to understand integrity at the level of non-human creation, first the living and then the inanimate part of it, neither of which is comprehensible apart from us or God.

We have already seen that integrity of creation is more than merely descriptive and can serve as a basis for ethically appropriate action directed towards justice and peace. It can therefore be explored at the following three levels:

Philosophically: the philosophy of the relations of entities that make the entity what it is. Theologically: integrity understood as the relations of all entities to God and of God to all entities. This is the doctrine of creation. Clearly the philosophy and theology of creation go together. Ethically: the implications of ( 1 ) and (2) for action to heal the environment, enhancing the quality of human and other life and of the rest of nature. This involves the replacement of instrumental ethics by an ethic which includes the intrinsic value of all creation.

Living within limits Having considered some implications of ecology for a credible theology of nature

we now review the related issue of the availability of material resources. What kind of global society will ultimately be sustainable from the point of view of ecological limits and technology? What are the theological presuppositions upon which appropriate environmental ethics should be based? The first question is the subject of a consider- able quantity of contemporary literature, the second has received scant attention and must urgently be addressed. The reason why technology must specifically be invoked is that it accounts for one of the most serious global examples of distributive injustice: 97 percent of all research and development is located in the so-called industrial North, and serves goals which in varying degrees are damaging to the interests of justice, peace and environmental integrity.

The sustainability of our global society has been studied by a number of groups, of which the Club of Rome is probably the best known. More recently the U N Brundtland Commission has reiterated its objective “to propose long-term strategies for develop- ment that will make possible a reasonable environment and sustainable growth to the

325

year 2000 and beyond"." Lynton Caldwell concludes his exhaustive review of a decade of international environmental concerns with a combination o f pessimism and h o p :

Barring unforeseen events. the ecological quality of the environment for all living things sccins almost certain to suffer a net decline in the decades ahead I t is difficult to believe that ;I change in hunian perceptions and valucs could wcur o n ;I scale and within a pcriod of time to reverse this psiniistic conclusion. Yet hurnan history has recorded abrupt and unprcdictcd changes in social behaviour. Events of the decade 1972-X? suggest that pcoplcs and their governments.. . arc developing an appreciation of the consequences o f continuing along the path of ecologically heedless exploitation of the earth. '

Individual church members, churches and the k C C have :dl been involved in the economic and environmental discussions 01' the late 1960s and 1970s. Within the WCC the main response has been the JPSS, which has now been replaced by JPIC. Clearly participation remains important. but i t is useful to explore connections between sustainability, perhaps in a modified form. and integrity of creation. Peace. of course. interpreted as shdotu includes harmony with the environment.

A major task must now he t o consider the theological presuppositions upon which appropriate environmental ethics should be based, recognizing that these will vary in different cultural contexts. This should eventually assist the churches as a whole t o stimulate practical responses on behalf o f those who - in the words o l t h c Vancouver Assembly -- "must live with the consequences of technological development". Such dialogue "is part of the church's witness t o the world's responsibility for the future of creation. I t is therelore part of theology and o l ecumenical social ethics.. . . We need ethical guidelines for a participatory society which will be both ecologically respon- sible and econoinically just. and can effectively struggle with the powers which threaten life and endanger our f u t ~ i r e " . ~

'The need for a strong theology of nature and a reassessinent of the doctrine of creation was also urged hy the WCC's 1979 Conference on "Faith. Science and the Future". It claimed:

W a y must he found to articulate a theology o l nature in term\ of a new ecological sensibility. Christian theology niust not hc reduced to naturalisnl nor can i t retreat from scicncc i n t o rcliyiou. feeling. Our thcoloyy niu\t ernpha\i/c our rc\ponsibility for naturc a s God's creation. ;I rc\ponsibility which accepts thc d u t y yivcn to us by God to carc for this world ."

Insights from physics The view that theology must recognize new insights from the physical sciences,

and in general cannot afford to retreat from science into religious leeling. is strongly advocated by Bishop Lesslie Newbigin:

326

TOWARDS A CREDIBLE IJCUMENICAL THEOLOGY OF NATURE

l h e greatest intcllectual task facing the church is a new dialogue with scicnce - a dialogue for which thc way has been preparcd by profound changcs in science (especially in physics) during this century.. . . Scientists havc been becoming acutely aware of the fact that their work is not ethically neutral. Thcy arc much concemcd about the ethical dilemmas posed for society by thc results of their work. But what is needed is somcthing more, a framework of thought in which ethical considerations are not merely external regulators of the results of scientific work, but science is itself part of a whole way of understanding from which ethics cannot be separated, because all knowing is an activity of persons responsible to God and to one another.’”

Newbigin identifies post-Enlightenment rationalism as a major factor in our contemporary cultural malaise and argues the need for a new “fiduciary framework”. He does not enter into a discussion of recent changes in physics, but he is presumably also alluding to the kind of ideas contained in Fritjof Capra’s The 7‘uo of Physics and The Turning Point.”

Some physicists now argue that consciousness may be an integral aspect of the entire universe, and that we may be blocked from further understanding of natural phenomena if we insist on excluding it. Two current wholistic approaches in physics come close to dealing explicitly with consciousness. The first is based on David Bohm’s idea of “unbroken wholeness”, his aim being to explore the order he believes to be inherent in the cosmic matrix of relations at a deeper, non-manifest level (implicate or enfolded order similar to that of a hologram). According to Bohm the real world is structured similarly, so that the whole is dynamically enfolded in each of its parts.

Geoffrey Chew’s theory of sub-atomic particles has been summed up in the convenient phrase “every particle consists of all other particles”. We can no longer pin down a particle or identify it as a proton, neutron, electron, etc. Instead we must regard every particle as being somehow made up of every other particle in an endless self-consistent loop of explanation (thus reminiscent of someone who falls into a pit and pulls himself out by his own bootstraps - hence the enigmatic title “bootstrap” for Chew’s theory).

Thus whether one considers physics, biology, medicine (Capra devotes a substan- tial section of his work to wholistic medicine), economics or ecology, some of the most profound and potentially creative developments from the point of view of a genuine rapport between science and faith stress the centrality of relationships.

But if these are now the focal point of the science/faith debate, how are we to limit it in order to make it manageable? If, for example, the New Physics is pointing in the direction of the same kind of wholism shared by biology and ecology, how legitimate is it to consider the sciencelfaith debate as primarily an intellectual task (as suggested by Newbigin)? The problem of setting an agenda which does justice to the full range of inter-related issues and yet is manageable is difficult, but of paramount importance.

Implications for theology Some of the implications of new insights in the sciences for theology have been

suggested already. But what is their point of entry into theological thinking, and how comparable are scientific and theological statements?

‘“The Other Side of 1984, Geneva, WCC. 1984. p.60. “ The Tao ofPh.vsics, London, Wildwood House, 1975; The Turning Point. New York. Simon & Schustcr, 1982.

321

THE EC'UblI<NICAI. REVIEW

The majority o f theologians try initially to relate discoveries from the world of science and technology to their discipline by considering how the Old Testament and the early church regarded nature. As we shall see, this is not very clear and needs to be supplemented by philosophical assumptions which go beyond the biblical data. But ultimately all theologies of nature can be subsumed under three main headings: pantheism (God in everything). classical deism (God made nature and left it) and panentheism (the world integrally involved in Gtd) . Insights from science must be related to one or other of these models in an appropriate language.

Literature about the Bible's attitude to nature is extensive, and only a brief account will be given here." It is unfortunate that the rather belittling attitude to nature of the Genesis creation stories is often taken as representative of the Old Testament as a whole. The Psalms are much more respectful and admiring in their descriptions of the natural world (e.g. Pss. 8.19.104). The Wisdom literature discovers moral lessons in nature and applies them to human situations, while Job recognizes the error o f his ways through a vision of creation's grandeur. Old Testament apocalyptic envisages an ultimate new order in which all creation will be at peace (e.p. Isa. I I ) .

But having said all this, we must not forget that the people o f the Old Testament - and our distant predecessors generally - had a hard time eking out their existence in the face of adverse conditions and climates. This is precisely the point made by John Pobee from his contemporary sub-Saharan perspective (see Introduction) - we must not romanticize the imperfections of our broken and fallen world.

In the New Testament Jesus speaks of the natural world with respect and appreciation, and praises i t for its constancy and orderliness. Paul makes an unkind remark about oxen in I Cor. 9:9 ("1s it for oxen that God is concerned?"), but in Romans 8 he looks forward to a consummation in which the entire creation. now groaning (cf. Pobee's realism), will be liberated.I3 Paul's mystical vision and the transfiguration of nature and humankind anticipated in St John's Revelation (Kom. 8, Rev. 2 I ) seem to be set against a somewhat deistic background in which evil forces are the cause both of environmental catastrophe and human sin. Early patristic literature (which has strongly influenced Eastern Orthodox theologians) echtm the same kind o f universal eschatological vision in which both humanity and nature are redeemed. But such a view is often predicated on the belief that sin and the Fall are also cosmic. Apocalyptic literature also raises very acutely the question of religious language, which we shall consider in the next section.

All in all the Bible and the early church seem to have had a more sensitive attitude to nature than is apparent from the former's opening chapters and the writings of some influential modern authors such as Lynn White." But the absence of an overall conception of nature as an ordered organic unity in the Bible means that credible theologies of nature must draw heavily on non-biblical data and ideas.

We revert, therefore, to the three main categories of creation theologies mentioned already, some of which are more biblical, in terms of what has just been said, than others. Pantheism, expressed as an undifferentiated unity between God. humanity and

I' For a recent summary. see Robin Attfield. The Erhics of' En,.irunmenral Conrern. Oxford, Blackwell, 1983. I' Gosling. "The Morality...". p.28. footnote. " "The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis", Science. March 1967.

328,

TOWARDS A CREDIBLE ECUMENICAL THEOLOGY OF NATURE

nature, is clearly unbiblical. It is worth noting in passing that thcre is a popular version of it which sanctifies the unjust status quo by claiming that nature is so intimately bound up with the divine that nothing must be changed. There are some sophisticated versions of monism in the Indian religious tradition which deserve careful considera- tion.

Classical deism is thc dominant world-view of many scientists, theologians and the majority of lay members of the public. Basically it amounts to the belief that God made nature and left it. Perhaps he wound it up like a huge clock, maybe he occasionally returns to perform miracles or raise somebody from the dead. But basically we are in charge of our own destinies. According to this model the mere instrumentality of nature is part and parcel of a much greater misunderstanding about the nature of God.

The third view that God is integrally involved in the world (panentheism) is endorsed by a number of eminent contemporary theologians such as Jiirgen Moltmann, process theology, and some contextual theologies. But although these schools of thought concur in their basic philosophical position, they contain quite striking differences vis-a-vis the respective relationships between God. humanity and nature.

The most recent panentheistic ecological doctrine of creation is by Jurgen Molt- mann.” Moltmann clearly believes that we are being confronted by limits in nature, and that the ecological crisis has a potentially irreversible character. Somehow we must shape nature into the kind of environment which can become our home (here he echoes E.F. Schumacher).

Moltmann’s theological point of entry for this thesis lies in the concept of biblical “notions” which, in spite of their cultural relatedness, contain an inherent capacity to address our situation. The Genesis creation myths, for example, become relevant when viewed from the perspective of New Testament messianism. Thus eschatology becomes central to biblical exegesis, and the future becomes the basis for hope.

Moltmann’s panentheism is apparent in his notions of God’s new creation, in which the triune God will dwell, and the kingdom, which is God’s “ecological” sabbath (so let’s not take our cars out on Sundays, he argues, rather unconvincingly!). The main weakness is that he devalues God’s activity in history. As a result, there is little or no basis for resolving some of the most pressing contemporary ethical issues. But his response to the ecological crisis is practical and decisive. We must choose between total destruction and a non-violent, peaceful global community. To this end we must channel our energies into creating a network for reciprocal relationships in cooperative communities.

Thus we see that there is a growing consensus among many ecumenically minded theologians that a credible theology of creation - the point of entry for discoveries in science - will meet essential conditions only if it is panentheistic. But before we can proceed further in this direction we must consider the question of how science and theology communicate their respective ideas to one another, and in what language.

The problem of language How are scientific and theological language related? We have considered, for

example, what scientists mean by relationships. But can we immediately step by way

” op. cit.

329

of this concept from the world of science into the world of theology? Does a min.iung theologian who attaches great significance to God as context mean precisely what a scientist would mean when using the same term’? George Ihdbcck has recently considered this important issue from the side of theology by arguing the need for an alternative approach to the two usual opposing views about the nature of doctrinal language. ’” The first of these sees church doctrines as informative propositions about objective realities, the second interprets doctrines as non-informative and non- discursive symbols of inner feelings, attitudes or experiential orientations. To use a rather simpler example than the ones cited by Lindbeck. we might consider what Christians mean when they affirm that God is love. The first school of thought would argue that the statement should be capable of proof or disproof, whereas others would argue that i t expresses inner feelings and intuitive certainties.

Is there another possibility? Lindbeck combines cognitive and experiential-expres- sive approaches along lines somewhat similar to Karl Rahner and Bernard Lonergan to produce what he calls a cultural-linguistic model for which the acid test is perform- ance:

I t has bccome customary in a considerable body of anthropological. sociological. and philosophical litcrature to emphasize neither the cognitive nor thc expcriential expressive aspccts of religion; rather. emphasis is placed on those respects ( s i c . ) in which religions resemble languages together with their correlative forms of life and are thus similar to cultures (insofar as these are understood semiotically as reality and value systems - that is, as idioms for the construing of reality and the living of life). The function of church doctrines that becomes most prominent in this pcrspcctive is their use. not as expressive symbols or as truth claims, but as communally authoritative rules of discourse. attitude, and action. This general way of conceptualizing rcligion will bc called a “cultural-linguistic’’ approach. and the implied view of church doctrine will be referred to as a “rcgulative“ or “rule” theory.’7

The linguistic aspect of Lindbcck’s approach opens up the way for more fruitful dialogue with science by raising the whole question of the nature of religious doctrine, while the cultural aspect challenges the characteristically European way of formulating doctrines in a cerebral and propositional manner which separates them from the life of the communities which generate them. The door is therefore opened for non-Western theologies, such as the ones cited earlier, to play a much more legitimate and central role.

Lindbeck is a staunch advocate of ecumenical theology, and it is important t o set his arguments against the background of ecumenical trends. in particular those which affirm Christologies that minimize the role of God the Creator. Where this is the case, the world of science and technology is not given due prominence for much the same reason that dialogue with people of other living faiths proves problematic.’x In one case the first, in the other, the third, person of the Trinity is regarded as little more than functional. There is an urgent need for an expanded ecumenical Christology within a more balanced Trinitarian framework.

Thus before we introduce our insights from science into the world of theology and of the churches, i t is important to recognize other essential issues such as differences in

’’ The Norrrru 1,f D o m i n u . 1.ondon. SPCK. 1984. ” Ihid, p. 17. I” Konrad Raiser. “Confessing [he Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour“. The Eru,,ieni~.u/Review,. Vol. 37. No. 2. April 1985.

330

TOWARDS A CREDIBLE ECUMENICAL THEOLOGY OF NATURE

the way language is used, and the particular prevailing “shape” of ecumenical theology.

Integrity of creation An attempt has been made to indicate some of the various strands which must go

into a credible theology of nature. The phrase integrity of creation (or the longer version JPIC) is shorthand for this task, but also for much more. The mere production of a theory, however meaningful and erudite, will never satisfy those whose theology is inextricably bound up with their day-to-day struggles. The ecumenical process which generated commitment to covenant for Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation is dynamic, global, based on consensus, and must be broadened and deepened. Integrity of creation must somehow lift up and liberate what otherwise might be a dry, academic, and inevitably North Atlantic dominated quest.

And yet, as we have seen, there are substantial contributions to our understanding of integrity of creation from ecology, physics and the biological sciences, plus data about the finiteness of material resources which must not be ignored. How can this be related to the more immediate day-to-day struggles in which many people, especially in developing countries, are situated?

In many ways this is the most crucial current issue in the entire ecumenical debate. Many people involved in justice and peace issues now recognize that environmental problems are every bit as serious as the ones with which they are traditionally familiar. But the incorporation of this issue both at grassroots level and also at the level of scholarly reflection remains a pressing task. The covenant for justice between people and God and between people must become one in which nature plays an active part.

33 I